--- title: Thought Backlog has_children: false layout: post date: 2020-08-16 04:00 permalink: /thought-backlog/ --- ## conflicts - conflict re: overreaching and discuss disagreements - pre-emptive reaction to avoid discussion and put on mental backlog - analysing lies application - uncertainty, self-eval - (from 2020-08-12) conflict between idea of structuring things well and having a full idea in your head and trying to get it all out at once. - keeping posts small but replying to lots of points - breaking up posts is annoying - so ideally take each discussion one post at a time? - doesn't take advantage of async or talking about multiple things during discussion - but can be more efficient if you focus on important things - check curi.us on discussions ### conflict: learning and error rate The conflict is to do with the relative prioritization activities related to these two ideas: - the idea that working on building blocks and foundations is more efficient; leads to exponential progress with a larger base (like 2^x vs 10^x) - that activities or projects with a higher error ("exploratory learning" sorta thing) are worthwhile or fun (particularly the fun is why we do them, right?) - counter-examples: - trying to do [number theory stuff from SICP](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYsTtXWzYPM) (via AnneB's work) -- big failure - 'blind trees evening' as I called it (the thing that prompted me to contact ET about tutoring) thoughts: - interesting case: doing time limited challenges increases error rate but can be useful for learning quickly - what's going on here? - example: max's time-limited writing challenges - the more I learn the more intuitive it is to me that [*powering-up*](https://www.elliottemple.com/essays/life-overreaching-correcting-error) is a priority. ## thoughts and ideas and stuff - gerunds can be modified by an adverb - - does fi/grammar say this? - does being unsiklled at FI and trying to manage a backlog become exponentially harder as prioritisation skills decrease? - like, prioritisation matters for effective FI participation with multiple things, and the more things the more it matters - so if someone is bad at FI and also bad at prioritisation it's a really uphill battle - increased bandwidth (time) means prioritisation is less important, less of a bottleneck - so more time is one way to get good enough for your prioritisation to get better - then once prioritisation is better you can manage things at a slower rate with good prioritisation ### copied over from [[List] Ideas during Analysing Lies 1](../posts/2020-08-12-list-ideas-during-analysing-lies-1) - why would it be important to be impressive but to not aim to be impressive? - analysing lies redux - explanation + bg on what I've watched - plan: X hrs a day, do both analysis then comparisons - log my unfinished topics - finish them - reflections on learning FI - challenge notion of self - can't predict problems or pace; if it wasn't surprising/confronting/causing idea-conflicts you wouldn't be learning - what topics could work well to help ppl getting in to FI - write posts (as exercises) about fallibleideas.github.io - add list of unresolved conflicts and track them - get them resolved (tutorial 26 examples; learning and errors; another one...) - how can you go about learning? - how can you actually be impressive instead of looking impressive? - what's the difference between debating as a debater, and debating as a thinker? - reconsider instantaneous goals - i.e. instantaneous priorities - change "why did I write this?" to "why should I write this?" - practice writing digests of what I learn; post those to site, maybe weekly update to FI? - write post about writing style and how it can be dishonest; simpler is better - here's an old example: XXXXX (e.g. IBDD popper's criterion) - speaking simply makes hiding lies harder. - speaker can't put in the same sort of social signals. it's harder to tell people what to think with simple language. - simple language is also easier to read and understand. if you can write complex ideas in simple language, that's a virtue. it makes it easier to spread good ideas, and it makes the writing more enduring. - (from AnalyzingLies1; ET) 32:07 where you're supposed to use bold and simple writing. and make your stuff easy to criticise. (not fancy and confusing) - thoughts on quoting people like goldratt: status, context, synchronising ideas - context, post about "intellectual response time doesn't matter; a novel interpretation of the tortoise and the hare as a metaphor for attitudes towards thinking and learning." - quote goldratt: "I'm a bodybuilder" - how to symbols and our ideas about our self interact? - why would rules like always saying "i think" before sentences mean when explaining an idea? - meaningless, it's sort of implied anyway - but also not saying it is (at least sometimes) explicitly removing the "it's just my opinion" excuse - you're making a claim about reality by doing that, and reality doesn't care about your opinion. - so to refuse to *not* add "i think" means (at least in part) that you're refusing to take "it's just my opinion" off the table as a means to end the discussion irrationally. why would someone do that? well one reason is because they want the excuse there b/c they know they'll need it. - how would grouping symbols change written english? (if we integrated something with a function like parens in maths / programming) - have a script / flow chart for resolving paths forward style stuff (where the other person has different ideas). you can add stuff like "do I spot a problem with meta / social stuff? yes -> raise that I have a problem, ask if they have methodology to resolve such issues. do they? no -> paths forward, yes -> try that. did it work? no -> paths forward, yes -> leart a new way to resolve conflicts maybe, maybe resolved by luck, either way you can move on and maybe take extra ideas w/ you (okay it's a long shot). - you can also say to the person (btw I have a methodology for asking about methodolgies, it's here if you want to check it out or skip ahead) - if the person looks at the flow chart and can move to the bit that's appropriate then it saves dialog time - don't tell a story ("i was reading blah and thought blah"), tell the idea ("what if blah causes blah? I think it could because blah. Here's an example: blah") #### August 13th - what is fallible ideas? - community + living tradition of critical fallibilism - what is the relationship between critical rationalism and critical fallibilism. What are some differences? - important disagreements exist - why would wanting to be remembered as someone who contributed to a good future be good? - why would wanting to be remembered as someone who contributed to a good future be second handed? - why would wanting to be remembered as someone who contributed to a good future be bad? - AL1: the prioritization of *academic* politicking indicates Birner thinks success as a philosopher depends on success in academia, which is wrong. - AL1: it's curious how much i read into both the title and the ellipsis. if they were put there by the guy who posted (need to check source) it shows how much i take good quoting for granted. if it wasn't CR i think i would have been more sceptical of the quoting quality. - why did overreaching stuff / coming to terms with own problems feel *~confessional* before but doesn't now? - songs to analyse - santa clause is coming to town (wrt TCS / lying to children) - call me maybe - you need to calm down (taylor swift) - blank space (taylor swift) - sk8er boi - standard nomenclature for FI posts about flagging stuff you - overreaching - label for full post - social signal / social dynamics / static meme - for particular statements or sentences; jokes, all jokes? - not all jokes; some are fine e.g. "a preposition is fine to end a sentence with" - self grading of quality