Live data from Hacker News

Optimism

github.com

141–150 of 165 posts

Re: Optimism

#141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a ton of research in this area and an entire field of clinical therapy called "cognitive behavioral therapy". There's literally too much to cite :-)

I did some googling around on the topic for past couple of hours. Seems like the jury is still out on it? This[1] article cites some research contradicting its past reliability. It seems too hard for a layman to make heads or tails of it. Let alone make recommendations to others, which seems irresponsible and dangerous to say the least. https://www.psychotherapynetworker.org/blog/details/705/is-c...

Just noting that Scott Alexander (a psychiatrist by vocation) has written some stuff on CBT

http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/16/cbt-in-the-water-supply...

http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/09/19/scientific-freud/

http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/13/things-that-sometimes-w...

http://slatestarcodex.com/tag/psychiatry/

I only read a couple of these and that was a while ago, but one interesting (and completely unproven) idea was that CBT's effect size could progressively vanish because so many of the useful ideas are being incorporated into folk psychology.

---

There's a longer post that I'd like to write about this topic in general (CBT, mindfulness, thoughtful self-help à la the OP) that I'd like to write, but that's going to take more thought. So I'm just going to throw some notes down.

The conclusion I've reached is that you can take that same analytical lens you use to tackle technical topics, turn it inward, and get actual benefit for relatively little time invested.

Recently I read Your Brain at Work. There were some flaws (eg, it really pushed ego depletion, which has failed to replicate), but one idea that stuck with me is that mindfulness isn't just hippie "being present" stuff. The meditative exercises can feel like that, but there's also a very analytical reflective aspect. One benefit of meditation is that it makes you more conscious of your own thought processes, which allows you to notice and stop unwanted mental processes as they arise.

Some other recent essays made the point that the most important benefit of the quantified-self movement is reflection, and you should make your choices about what and how to track based on that.

http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2016/03/24/the-holy-grail-of-self-...

http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2016/04/21/a-framework-of-experime... (the section Concrete Reflexivity is the most relevant)

I've been working on some habits inspired by http://lesswrong.com/lw/fux/my_workflow/. What I found most valuable was incorporating periodic, deliberate reflection into a daily routine with a (digital, searchable, cross-referenceable) paper trail.

I realized that TODO lists weren't just useful for remembering to do things but also useful for clearing out mental static. So instead of just keeping lists for work/school, I also kept a list of more frivolous things (project ideas to flesh out, looking up peoples' opinions on some book, etc.) and would offload any distracting thoughts that came to mind during work hours to it.

I'd heard somewhere that speaking to someone in the morning helps you wake up faster, so I begin practicing Duolingo in bed on important mornings, and kept track of how long it took me to get to work each day (+how much sleep I'd gotten, etc.).

I'd been reading about Jonathan Haidt's theory of moral value and how a lot of human political instincts could be framed as extensions of the basic disgust instinct, so I decided to try deliberately linking distraction with uncleanliness in my mind. I don't think that was particularly helpful or harmful. But in the process I noticed that uncleanliness for me corresponds to a feeling of skin-tingling, like I hadn't showered for a day or two, and I did start having that same feeling when I was getting off-task during the day.

I'm not sure any of this has made me significantly more productive, but the sense of mental control has made me calmer.

Re: Optimism

#142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having it in markdown form should make outputting to a consumable Web format (HTML, ePub, PDF) possible. I'm on a platform (Android) which doesn't have a Markdown translator readily available. Not even via Termux. You're publishing, for the public. If you want to provide editorial sources, that's one matter. If you want to make consumption easy for your readers, that's another. You've failed at it. And repeatedly def…

Wow

I'm not unaware of Ravenwald's reputation on HN. I've liked some of what he's done myself.

Part of the reason I'm making a bit of a stink about presentation is that 1) this is a technical site, technique is what we discuss, and 2) I'm aware of the tools and capabilities for doing this.

If you've got a system with the tools on it (my tablet, as noted, isn't one), then it is completely trivial to output a usable and useful format.

I do this fairly routinely myself, and on third party sources. E.g., a 1793 document, running 72 pages formatted, which apparently doesn't have a high-quality contemporary formatted version available: https://ello.co/dredmorbius/post/lhw2eq4qmnnwxijlcrfyba

On my desktop system, where it's supported (again, tablet, not), I've written 1800+ CSS stylesheets (most pretty similar and fairly simple), to fix annoyances with sites.

It's not that I can't fix this, if arsed enough to do something about it.

It's that deliberately fucking up presentations is hugely disrespectful to readers. It's why I try to take pains in what I write and style to not fuck shit up. Which is sometimes difficult (client systems are a complete and total shitstorm). But not falling over the low-hanging fruit such as providing mark-ed up rather than rendered text for readers helps a tad.

(And yes, I've ranted at blog editors, magazines, The New York Times, and Hacker News about various foul-ups.)

There's a greater irony, perhaps, in that my own psychological state is giving me a literal headache looking at Ravenwald's presentation here, given its topic. I really don't have the damned spoons for it.

Just sayin'.

Re: Optimism

#143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When giving feedback, some people say that they are brutally honest As someone who prefers giving and receiving terse feedback... I would suggest that there's nothing wrong with brutal honesty for type of people who appreciate receiving it . If I write code and forget to test some specific cases, I would much rather get a code review of "Missing tests for negative numbers, empty string, null" than a longwinded and…

> for type of people who appreciate receiving it This is key. I wonder though, what's a good way to signal that to friends and coworkers? I personally declare Crocker's rules[0], but I rarely have the opportunity to communicate that to people I'm talking to. [0] - https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Crocker's_rules "By declaring commitment to Crocker's rules, one authorizes other debaters to optimize their messages for i…

I don't think being blunt is more efficient. First, adding a few "kind" softener words do not really take so much time, don't you think so? Second, efficiency in human to human communication is not only a function of raw information density. Adding well chosen "kind words" may allow the reader to get some context and a better understanding of the message.

A simple example: say you already communicated with the guy in the past. If you add a reference to this previous communication, the reader will remember you better and adjust the frame.

There's so many things passing through language, many are very volatile but still important. We're not computers. Human language have very little in common with computer languages.

Re: Optimism

#144
post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> for type of people who appreciate receiving it This is key. I wonder though, what's a good way to signal that to friends and coworkers? I personally declare Crocker's rules[0], but I rarely have the opportunity to communicate that to people I'm talking to. [0] - https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Crocker's_rules "By declaring commitment to Crocker's rules, one authorizes other debaters to optimize their messages for i…

I don't think being blunt is more efficient. First, adding a few "kind" softener words do not really take so much time, don't you think so? Second, efficiency in human to human communication is not only a function of raw information density. Adding well chosen "kind words" may allow the reader to get some context and a better understanding of the message. A simple example: say you already communicated with the guy in…

I think it's already captured in Crocker's rules definition - "one authorizes other debaters to optimize their messages for information, even when this entails that emotional feelings will be disregarded". It's not about being rude for the sake of being rude - if a kind word provides some context best, a kind word should be used. The idea here is to free your interlocutor from having to constantly censor their communication in order not to accidentally offend you.

Re: Optimism

#145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As mentioned elsewhere in this discussion, this is the markdown source for a presentation. A program called DeckSet turns it into a conventional presentation. Having it in markdown enables some useful things like git/github.

Having it in markdown form should make outputting to a consumable Web format (HTML, ePub, PDF) possible. I'm on a platform (Android) which doesn't have a Markdown translator readily available. Not even via Termux. You're publishing, for the public. If you want to provide editorial sources, that's one matter. If you want to make consumption easy for your readers, that's another. You've failed at it. And repeatedly def…

You’re reading the source for a talk I “published” at Nordic Ruby by speaking while presenting.

A friend video’d the presentation, which I published on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xjntzo-mYc

I published it again in another format on SpeakerDeck: https://speakerdeck.com/raganwald/optimism

The SpeakerDeck page includes a link to download it as a PDF.

And yet, someone discovered the source and decided to share that on HN. So be it. Any criticism you have to share with me is impersonal (I didn’t tell anyone to read the source), temporary, and obviously specific to this odd scenario.

FWIW, I’m chuffed, not chastised. It’s amazing to me that he source can be viewed with a web browser and is readable enough to be criticized. More apps should work this way.

So, I am not “defending” the format. I’m explaining it.

---

p.s. To be precise, this is the source I published:

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/raganwald/presentations/ma...

The link submitted to HN above is GitHub’s attempt to preview the source as best it knows how.

Re: Optimism

#146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "paper" is actually the markdown source for a presentation, the ^ characters are markup indicating that what follows is a speaker's note that does not appear on the slide. Elsewhere in this discussion, you will find a link to a video of the presentation, and I trust that if you go looking for evidence that I am a self-important windbag, you will have no difficulty gathering evidence that is consistent with your p…

It's a little ironic that you used this insider information to gauge the reception and audience to your talk about optimism? It's easier to be optimistic when you can more easily expect an outcome, isn't it?

“Optimism” in the context of “Learned Optimism” is a term describing the way people explain past events to themselves, not their expectation of whether good things will happen to them in the future.

In my case, I was dropping my line where the fish were biting.

Re: Optimism

#147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But, don't you think we need clear definition of problem before we go about finding solutions for it ? Is that too much to ask for? Just feels a little odd to talk about overly elaborate solutions for a poorly defined problem. Not really. In practice it's fairly common for doctors to try treatments without being sure what the cause of the symptom is. I don't think it makes sense to say "well, we're not going to try…

>In practice it's fairly common for doctors to try treatments without being sure what the cause of the symptom is. You mean nonchalantly prescribing anti depressants? I was put on zoloft about 1.5 years over 7 years ago and I still suffer from side effects despite being only on 'pediatric dosage'. Never again!!

I'm sorry you had a negative experience, but I'm not sure that's enough to say that the practice is without merit.

Re: Optimism

#148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When giving feedback, some people say that they are brutally honest As someone who prefers giving and receiving terse feedback... I would suggest that there's nothing wrong with brutal honesty for type of people who appreciate receiving it . If I write code and forget to test some specific cases, I would much rather get a code review of "Missing tests for negative numbers, empty string, null" than a longwinded and…

> for type of people who appreciate receiving it This is key. I wonder though, what's a good way to signal that to friends and coworkers? I personally declare Crocker's rules[0], but I rarely have the opportunity to communicate that to people I'm talking to. [0] - https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Crocker's_rules "By declaring commitment to Crocker's rules, one authorizes other debaters to optimize their messages for i…

Interesting, never heard of Crocker's rules before. Fascinating, and there are parts of it I definitely like, especially the bits around "accepting full responsibility for the operation of your own mind."

That said, this assumes that all communication is between two individuals, and doesn't provide signaling to other members of the group. For instance, if both you and I adopt crocker's rules, but Bob and Susan do not, a new member of our group may assume incorrectly that this type of communication is appropriate for Bob and Susan, or create an environment where the new/less powerful member may be less willing to speak up because of the perceived tone of communication.

It also seems to be position of relative power: one adopting Crocker's rules assumes to be in a position where certain types of speech do no harm to them.

Re: Optimism

#149
Imagine you are a cyclist. At the end of the 100 miles is a sweet, sweet piece of cake.

But the road has uphills and downhills: the cognitive boosters and roadblocks.

The optimist only sees the downhills.

The pessimist only sees the uphills.

The realist sees both, and makes a guess on whether this journey is worthwhile. Is the cake worth the effort?

The optimist, while appealing, will soon be met with unexpected uphills. He will be distraught, and maybe even give up.

Shoot for the realist, not the optimist.

Re: Optimism

#150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did some googling around on the topic for past couple of hours. Seems like the jury is still out on it? This[1] article cites some research contradicting its past reliability. It seems too hard for a layman to make heads or tails of it. Let alone make recommendations to others, which seems irresponsible and dangerous to say the least. https://www.psychotherapynetworker.org/blog/details/705/is-c...

Just noting that Scott Alexander (a psychiatrist by vocation) has written some stuff on CBT http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/16/cbt-in-the-water-supply... http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/09/19/scientific-freud/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/13/things-that-sometimes-w... http://slatestarcodex.com/tag/psychiatry/ I only read a couple of these and that was a while ago, but one interesting (and completely unproven) i…

These were some really great links. Spent last couple of hours reading through them, still digesting the content. Also great write up. Longer post would be nice :).
Post reply on HN