trentmkelly/LessWrong-43k huggingface dataset:
Meditation: a self-experiment
by Swimmer963 (Miranda Dixon-Luinenburg)  — 2013-12-30T00:56:06.517Z

Introduction

The LW/CFAR community has a fair amount of interest in meditation. This isn't surprising; many of the people who practiced and wrote about meditation in the past were trying to train a skill similar to rationality. Schools of meditation seem to be the closest already-existing thing to rationality dojos–this doesn't mean that they're very similar, only that I can't think of anything else that's more similar.

People are Doing Science on meditation; there are studies on the effects of meditation on attention, depression, anxiety, stress and pain reduction. [Insert usual disclaimer that many of these studies either won't be replicated or aren't measuring what they think they're measuring]. Meditation is apparently considered a form of alternative medicine; this is quite annoying, actually, since it's a thing that might help a lot of people being lumped in with other things that almost certainly don't work.

[There's the spiritual enlightenment element of meditation, too. I won't touch on that, since my own experience isn't related to that aspect.]

Brienne Strohl has posted about meditation and metacognition; DavidM has posted on meditation and insight. Valentine, of CFAR, talked about mindfulness meditation helping to dispel the illusion of being hurried and never having enough time.

In short, lots of hype–enough that I found it worthwhile to give it a try myself. The main benefit I hoped to attain from practicing meditation was better control of attention–to be able to aim my attention more reliably at a particular target, and notice more quickly when it drifted. The secondary benefit would be better understanding and control of emotions, which I had already tried to accomplish through techniques other than meditation. However, I’d had the experience for several years of thinking that meditation was a valuable thing to try, and not trying it–evidence that I needed more than good intentions.

The experiment

Sometime in early September, I saw a poster on the wall at the hospital where I work, advertising a study on mindfulness meditation for people with social anxiety. I called the number on the poster and got myself enrolled because it was a good pre-commitment strategy. The benefits were deadlines, social pressure, and structure, with a steady supply of exercises, audio recordings, and reading...
Why CFAR?
by AnnaSalamon — 2013-12-28T23:25:10.296Z

Summary: We outline the case for CFAR, including:

Our long-term goal;

Our plan, and our progress to date;

Our financials; and

How you can help.

CFAR is in the middle of our annual matching fundraiser right now. If you've been thinking of donating to CFAR, now is the best time to decide for probably at least half a year. Donations up to $150,000 will be matched until January 31st; and Matt Wage, who is matching the last $50,000 of donations, has vowed not to donate unless matched.[1]

Our workshops are cash-flow positive, and subsidize our basic operations (you are not subsidizing workshop attendees). But we can't yet run workshops often enough to fully cover our core operations. We also need to do more formal experiments, and we want to create free and low-cost curriculum with far broader reach than the current workshops. Donations are needed to keep the lights on at CFAR, fund free programs like the Summer Program on Applied Rationality and Cognition, and let us do new and interesting things in 2014 (see below, at length).[2]

Our long-term goal

CFAR's long-term goal is to create people who can and will solve important problems -- whatever the important problems turn out to be.[3]

We therefore aim to create a community with three key properties:

Competence -- The ability to get things done in the real world. For example, the ability to work hard, follow through on plans, push past your fears, navigate social situations, organize teams of people, start and run successful businesses, etc.

Epistemic rationality -- The ability to form relatively accurate beliefs. Especially the ability to form such beliefs in cases where data is limited, motivated cognition is tempting, or the conventional wisdom is incorrect.

Do-gooding -- A desire to make the world better for all its people; the tendency to jump in and start/assist projects that might help (whether by labor or by donation); and ambition in keeping an eye out for projects that might help a lot and not just a little.

Why competence, epistemic rationality, and do-gooding?

To change the world, we'll need to be able to take effective action (competence). We'll need to be able to form a good implicit and explicit understanding of the human world and how to shift it. We'll need to have the best shot we can get at modeling situations yet

...
Meetup : London 2014 Protospective
by sixes_and_sevens — 2013-12-28T16:17:23.254Z

Discussion article for the meetup : London 2014 Protospective

WHEN:
05 January 2014 02:00:00PM (+0000)

WHERE:
The Shakespeare's Head, Holborn, London WC2B 6BG

The first London meetup of 2014, and we'll be having the unstructured (read "probably imaginary") discussion topic of the year ahead. We can speculate wildly about significant events in 2014, talk about short- to mid-term goals, or propose novel resolution commitment strategies.

Alternatively, we can sit around and pleasantly chew over the usual Less Wrong related subjects, which works pretty well for us. If you're in or around London and haven't come to a meetup before, why not start in 2014? We're a friendly bunch, and this meetup session won't be all that involved or taxing.

The venue is The Shakespeare's Head, which is very easy to get to. Exit Holborn tube station and turn left. It's less than a hundred metres on your left. We'll have a Less Wrong / paperclip sign somewhere on the table. Any problems finding it, or locating the group in the pub, ring 07887 718458 and we'll send someone to find you..

Discussion article for the meetup : London 2014 Protospective
Doubt, Science, and Magical Creatures - a Child's Perspective
by Benquo — 2013-12-28T15:26:40.958Z

Doubt

I grew up in a Jewish household, so I didn't have Santa Claus to doubt - but I did have the tooth fairy.

It was hard for me to believe that a magical being I had never seen somehow knew whenever any child lost their tooth, snuck into their house unobserved without setting off the alarms, for unknown reasons took the tooth, and for even less fathomable reasons left a dollar and a note in my mom's handwriting.

On the other hand, the alternative hypothesis was no less disturbing: my parents were lying to me.

Of course I had to know which of these terrible things was true. So one night, when my parents were out (though I was still young enough to have a babysitter), I noticed that my tooth was coming out and decided that this would be...

A Perfect Opportunity for an Experiment.

I reasoned that if my parents didn't know about the tooth, they wouldn't be able to fake a tooth fairy appearance. I would find a dollar and note under my pillow if, but only if, the tooth fairy were real.

I solemnly told the babysitter, "I lost my tooth, but don't tell Mom and Dad. It's important - it's science!" Then at the end of the night I went to my bedroom, put the tooth under the pillow, and went to sleep. The next morning, I woke up and looked under my pillow. The tooth was gone, and in place there was a dollar and a note from the "tooth fairy."

This could have been the end of the story. I could have decided that I'd performed an experiment that would come out one way if the tooth fairy were real, and a different way if the tooth fairy were not. But I was more skeptical than that. I thought, "What's more likely? That a magical creature took my tooth? Or that the babysitter told my parents?"

I was furious at the possibility of such an egregious violation of experimental protocol, and never trusted that babysitter in the lab again.

An Improvement in Experimental Design

The next time, I was more careful. I understood that the flaw in the previous experiment had been failure to adequately conceal the information from my parents. So the next time I lost a tooth, I told no one. As soon as I felt it coming loose in my mouth, I ducked into the bathroom, ran it under the tap to clean it, wrapped it in a tissue, stuck it in my pocket, and went about my day as if nothing had happened. That night, when no one was around to see, I put the tooth under my pillow before I went to sleep.

In the mo...
Meetup : Washington DC: Birthday Party/PD tournament
by rocurley — 2013-12-28T07:13:54.211Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Washington DC: Birthday Party/PD tournament

WHEN:
29 December 2013 03:00:00AM (-0500)

WHERE:
National Portrait Gallery, Washington, DC 20001, USA

It's Robby's birthday! We'll be meeting to hang out and generally have fun.

There will be delicious baked goods! These delicious baked goods will be at least partially used as prizes in a prisoner's dilemma tournament.

Discussion article for the meetup : Washington DC: Birthday Party/PD tournament
Online vs. Personal Conversations
by katydee — 2013-12-28T04:31:40.829Z

When I was younger, I thought that conversations in real life were much more likely to promote true beliefs and meaningful changes than conversations online, because people in real life were only willing/able to cite evidence they were actually confident in, while those online were able to easily search for arguments favoring their position.

While this is obviously wrong—the concept that people in real life only cite evidence they are justifiably confident in is comically false—I do think the dichotomy illustrated there is interesting. One thing I've noticed is that in general the "rigor" of discussions online is higher (in terms of citations, links to external content, etc.), but that conversations in real life seem still much more likely to actually change people's minds.

I have noticed this effect in both myself and others—what do you think is going on here, and how do you think we might circumvent it? If online discussions could be made more effective at causing people to actually change their minds, this could potentially prove extremely useful.
Meetup : Southeast Michigan
by Scott Alexander — 2013-12-27T22:25:58.920Z

WHEN: 04 January 2014 02:00:00PM (-0500)

WHERE: 19334 Angling Street, Livonia, MI

Just about six months after the last meetup (which was lots of fun!), please take time out to attend another Detroit/Ann Arbor area Less Wrong meetup. With special visiting guests - Alicorn and Mike Blume!

Meetup will be held at the same house it was in last time. Itinerary is still "snacks and informal discussion". RSVPs still appreciated but not required.

If there are people who can't make it then but can make that Sunday, I will consider changing the date.
Ritual Report: Boston Solstice Celebration
by Vika — 2013-12-27T15:28:34.052Z

A week after the large-scale Solstice celebration in NYC, we held a smaller one in Boston at Citadel house, with around 20 people attending. The content was essentially a subset (given below) of the 2012 NYC solstice set list - a mix of silly and serious songs and readings, and following a thematic progression from light to darkness and back to light. We had several people leading songs - Julia, Beth, Janos and me, with Jeff accompanying on the piano, and everyone else singing along using the slides. Here is a video of our rendition of Mindspace is Deep and Wide, courtesy of Julia.

A number of things went well about our celebration. The number of people was just right for keeping it cozy and personal, and fitting into the Citadel living room. It was great to have a variety of lead singers, and the others sang along readily. The piano accompaniment was especially awesome, and created a more solemn atmosphere. A highlight of the evening was Jim's inspirational and touching speech during the Moment of Darkness. The light-dark-light progression worked quite well with this subset of the original set list. The ceremony lasted for 90 minutes, which was a good length for immersing the audience without dragging on for too long. There was a decent amount of free-form discussion before and after the event, with some nice potluck food.

The parts that didn't go as well mostly had to do with last-minute preparation on our part. The event was planned during the preceding week, so we could have used a few more rehearsals of the songs and even more instrumental accompaniment (this time about half were acapella). We also went through the songs a little quickly, and many of them could have used more introduction or explanation. Next year, we will probably involve even more people in leading the songs, and it would be great to vary the set list and add more songs that have personal significance to the people involved. (This year, we added Jewel in the Night, composed on the International Space Station, which worked really well with the event theme.)

Another improvement would be to avoid disruptions caused by latecomers. Both in NYC last year and in Boston this year, there were people who rang the doorbell and came in during intense solemn portions of the event. As Jeff suggested, it would be a good idea to request ahead of time for people to arrive before time X, and to have a sig...
Weekly LW Meetups
by FrankAdamek — 2013-12-27T14:23:10.317Z

This summary was posted to LW main on December 27th. The following week's summary is here.

New meetups (or meetups with a hiatus of more than a year) are happening in:

[Leipzig] Secular Solstice Celebration! (And the Inauguration of the LW Leipzig Community): 21 December 2013 05:05PM

Other irregularly scheduled Less Wrong meetups are taking place in:

Israel Meetup (Tel Aviv) with special guest Tomer Kagan: 26 December 2013 08:00PM
Montreal - How to Actually Change your Mind: 07 January 2014 07:00PM
Moscow, How Can Visual Image Be Rational: 22 December 2013 04:00PM
Moscow: Art Therapy for Emotions: 24 December 2013 06:00PM
Urbana-Champaign: Rituals: 21 December 2013 02:00PM

The remaining meetups take place in cities with regular scheduling, but involve a change in time or location, special meeting content, or simply a helpful reminder about the meetup:

Berlin: 01 January 2019 01:30PM
Boston Winter Solstice: 21 December 2013 06:00PM
Brussels monthly meetup: [topic TBD]: 11 January 2014 01:00PM
Vienna: 18 January 2014 03:00PM

Locations with regularly scheduled meetups: Austin, Berkeley, Berlin, Brussels, Cambridge, MA, Cambridge UK, Columbus, London, Madison WI, Melbourne, Mountain View, New York, Philadelphia, Research Triangle NC, Salt Lake City, Seattle, Toronto, Vienna, Washington DC, Waterloo, and West Los Angeles. There's also a 24/7 online study hall for coworking LWers.

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 (more resources here). Check one out, stretch your rationality skills, build community, and have fun!

In addition to the handy sidebar of upcoming meetups, a meetup overview is posted on the front page every Friday. These are an attempt to collect information on all the meetups happening in upcoming weeks. The best way to get your meetup featured is still to use the Add New Meetup feature, but you'll also have the benefit of having your meetup mentioned in a weekly overview. These overview posts are moved to the discussion section when the new post goes up.

Please note that for your meetup to appear in the weekly meetups feature, you need to post your meetup before the Friday before your meetup!

If you check Less Wrong irregularly, consider subscribing to one or more city-specific mailing list in order to be notified ...
A proposed inefficiency in the Bitcoin markets
by Liron — 2013-12-27T03:48:56.031Z

Salviati: Simplicio, do you think the Bitcoin markets are efficient?

Simplicio: If you'd asked me two years ago, I would have said yes. I know hindsight is 20/20, but even at the time, I think the fact that relatively few people were trading it would have risen to prominence in my analysis.

Salviati: And what about today?

Simplicio: Today, it seems like there's no shortage of trading volume. The hedge funds of the world have heard of Bitcoin, and had their quants do their fancy analyses on it, and they actively trade it.

Salviati: Well, I'm certainly not a quant, but I think I've spotted a systematic market inefficiency. Would you like to hear it?

Simplicio: Nah, I'm good.

Salviati: Did you hear what I said? I think I've spotted an exploitable pattern of price movements in a $10 Billion market. If I'm right, it could make us a lot of money.

Simplicio: Sure, but you won't convince me that whatever pattern you're thinking of is a "reliable" one.

Salviati: Come on, you don't even know what my argument is.

Simplicio: But I know how your argument is going to be structured. First you're going to identify some property of Bitcoin prices in past data. Then you'll explain some causal model you have which supposedly accounts for why prices have had that property in the past. Then you'll say that your model will continue to account for that same property in future Bitcoin prices.

Salviati: Yeah, so? What's wrong with that?

Simplicio: The problem is that you are not a trained quant, and therefore, your brain is not capable of bringing a worthwhile property of Bitcoin prices to your attention.

Salviati: Dude, I just want to let you know because this happens often and no one else is ever going to say anything: you're being a dick.

Simplicio: Look, quants are good at their job. To a first approximation, quants are like perfect Bayesian reasoners who maintain a probability distribution over the "reliability" of every single property of Bitcoin prices that you and I are capable of formulating. So this argument you're going to make to me, a quant has already made to another quant, and the other quant has incorporated it into his hedge fund's trading algorithms.

Salviati: Fine, but so what if quants have already figured out my argument for themselves? We can make money on it too.

Simplicio: No, we can't. I told you I'm pretty confident that the market is efficie

...
Donating to MIRI vs. FHI vs. CEA vs. CFAR
by ChrisHallquist — 2013-12-27T03:43:04.752Z

In a discussion a couple months ago, Luke said, "I think it's hard to tell whether donations do more good at MIRI, FHI, CEA, or CFAR." So I want to have a thread to discuss that.

My own very rudimentary thoughts: I think the research MIRI does is probably valuable, but I don't think it's likely to lead to MIRI itself building FAI. I'm convinced AGI is much more likely to be built by a government or major corporation, which makes me more inclined to think movement-building activities are likely to be valuable, to increase the odds of the people at that government or corporation being conscious of AI safety issues, which MIRI isn't doing.

It seems like FHI is the obvious organization to donate to for that purpose, but Luke seems to think CEA (the Centre for Effective Altruism) and CFAR could also be good for that, and I'm not entirely clear on why. I sometimes get the impression that some of CFAR's work ends up being covert movement-building for AI-risk issues, but I'm not sure to what extent that's true. I know very little about CEA, and a brief check of their website leaves me a little unclear on why Luke recommends them, aside from the fact that they apparently work closely with FHI.

This has some immediate real-world relevance to me: I'm currently in the middle of a coding bootcamp and not making any money, but today my mom offered to make a donation to a charity of my choice for Christmas. So any input on what to tell her would be greatly appreciated, as would more information on CFAR and CEA, which I'm sorely lacking in.
CFAR has a matched-donations fundraiser going on [LINK]
by Benquo — 2013-12-26T14:38:39.685Z

http://rationality.org/fundraiser2013/

The folks at CFAR are working on a post talking about all the good work they've done and plan to do, but in the meantime I'm putting this up as a placeholder in case anyone finishing up their 2013 donations literally doesn't know about it. Someone please let me know if the official announcement's already up and I've missed it.

UPDATE: Lukeprog pointed out that there's a stub in Main too. Also I put up my own bleg on behalf of CFAR here: http://benjaminrosshoffman.com/cfar-second-thoughts-and-a-bleg/ It was an interesting exercise in trying to write glowing praise while experiencing extreme annoyance. I hope I succeeded.

I also hope the official version will be up very soon!
UPDATE2: CFAR now has a post up explaining what they are working on and why you should give. You should probably trust the official version more than mine.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/jej/why_cfar/
Discussions for information
by KatjaGrace — 2013-12-25T20:57:34.000Z

Information and ideas percolate through society in many forms: via research papers, media publications, schools, advocacy campaigns, and perhaps most ubiquitously, private conversations.

Private conversations fulfill purposes other than information processing and transfer, so they cannot be expected to perfectly fulfill such roles, or even to fulfil them particularly well. They convey implicit information about the speakers and their qualities, they manifest social maneuvering, they embody humor and other good feelings, and they make a good circumstance for enjoying company more generally.

The information related roles that conversation can play most obviously include straightforwardly communicating information, and – in a more argumentative fashion – collaboratively figuring out what is true. Even if conversations are usually for other things as well, given that they are a major part of the social information and dispersal system, one might wonder if they could do these jobs better when those roles are important. For instance, if you partake in ‘work’ conversations with the intention of productively progressing toward specific goals, should you be doing anything other than following your natural conversation instincts?

If you wanted to fulfill these information roles with conversations, here are some ways they seem to fall short in general:

They are rarely recorded or shared usefully. Which is bad because it means they must be repeated anew by many different groups of people, not to mention exactly the same people.

Relatedly, conversations seem to hardly build on one another over time. If I think of a good counterargument to your point, this won’t be available to any of the gazillion others having the same argument in the near future, because neither of us will do anything that makes it so, and both of us will probably forget all but the gist of the discussion by tomorrow. I posit that it is very hard to have a counterargument to a counterargument to a counterargument to an argument widely known, even when the argument and the counterargument are often repeated. Except when participants have a history or perhaps a shared subculture, each discussion basically starts the topic anew. A given discussion rarely gets through many considerations, and doesn’t leave the considerations it gets through in a state to be built upon by

...