Maybe we need a site like reddit for self-help tips. That way you could try the thing that worked for the most people first.

Previously in seriesMandatory Secret Identities

I've noticed a serious problem in which aspiring rationalists vastly overestimate their ability to optimize other people's lives.  And I think I have some idea of how the problem arises.

You read nineteen different webpages advising you about personal improvement—productivity, dieting, saving money.  And the writers all sound bright and enthusiastic about Their Method, they tell tales of how it worked for them and promise amazing results...

But most of the advice rings so false as to not even seem worth considering.  So you sigh, mournfully pondering the wild, childish enthusiasm that people can seem to work up for just about anything, no matter how silly.  Pieces of advice #4 and #15 sound interesting, and you try them, but... they don't... quite... well, it fails miserably.  The advice was wrong, or you couldn't do it, and either way you're not any better off.

And then you read the twentieth piece of advice—or even more, you discover a twentieth method that wasn't in any of the pages—and STARS ABOVE IT ACTUALLY WORKS THIS TIME.

At long, long last you have discovered the real way, the right way, the way that actually works.  And when someone else gets into the sort of trouble you used to have—well, this time you know how to help them.  You can save them all the trouble of reading through nineteen useless pieces of advice and skip directly to the correct answer.  As an aspiring rationalist you've already learned that most people don't listen, and you usually don't bother—but this person is a friend, someone you know, someone you trust and respect to listen.

And so you put a comradely hand on their shoulder, look them straight in the eyes, and tell them how to do it.

I, personally, get quite a lot of this.  Because you see... when you've discovered the way that really works... well, you know better by now than to run out and tell your friends and family.  But you've got to try telling Eliezer Yudkowsky.  He needs it, and there's a pretty good chance that he'll understand.

It actually did take me a while to understand.  One of the critical events was when someone on the Board of the Institute Which May Not Be Named, told me that I didn't need a salary increase to keep up with inflation—because I could be spending substantially less money on food if I used an online coupon service.  And I believed this, because it was a friend I trusted, and it was delivered in a tone of such confidence.  So my girlfriend started trying to use the service, and a couple of weeks later she gave up.

Now here's the the thing: if I'd run across exactly the same advice about using coupons on some blog somewhere, I probably wouldn't even have paid much attention, just read it and moved on.  Even if it were written by Scott Aaronson or some similar person known to be intelligent, I still would have read it and moved on.  But because it was delivered to me personally, by a friend who I knew, my brain processed it differently—as though I were being told the secret; and that indeed is the tone in which it was told to me.  And it was something of a delayed reaction to realize that I'd simply been told, as personal advice, what otherwise would have been just a blog post somewhere; no more and no less likely to work for me, than a productivity blog post written by any other intelligent person.

And because I have encountered a great many people trying to optimize me, I can attest that the advice I get is as wide-ranging as the productivity blogosphere.  But others don't see this plethora of productivity advice as indicating that people are diverse in which advice works for them.  Instead they see a lot of obviously wrong poor advice.  And then they finally discover the right way—the way that works, unlike all those other blog posts that don't work—and then, quite often, they decide to use it to optimize Eliezer Yudkowsky.

Don't get me wrong.  Sometimes the advice is helpful.  Sometimes it works.  "Stuck In The Middle With Bruce"—that resonated, for me.  It may prove to be the most helpful thing I've read on the new Less Wrong so far, though that has yet to be determined.

It's just that your earnest personal advice, that amazing thing you've found to actually work by golly, is no more and no less likely to work for me than a random personal improvement blog post written by an intelligent author is likely to work for you.

"Different things work for different people."  That sentence may give you a squicky feeling; I know it gives me one.  Because this sentence is a tool wielded by Dark Side Epistemology to shield from criticism, used in a way closely akin to "Different things are true for different people" (which is simply false).

But until you grasp the laws that are near-universal generalizations, sometimes you end up messing around with surface tricks that work for one person and not another, without your understanding why, because you don't know the general laws that would dictate what works for who.  And the best you can do is remember that, and be willing to take "No" for an answer.

You especially had better be willing to take "No" for an answer, if you have power over the Other.  Power is, in general, a very dangerous thing, which is tremendously easy to abuse, without your being aware that you're abusing it.  There are things you can do to prevent yourself from abusing power, but you have to actually do them or they don't work.  There was a post on OB on how being in a position of power has been shown to decrease our ability to empathize with and understand the other, though I can't seem to locate it now.  I have seen a rationalist who did not think he had power, and so did not think he needed to be cautious, who was amazed to learn that he might be feared...

It's even worse when their discovery that works for them, requires a little willpower.  Then if you say it doesn't work for you, the answer is clear and obvious: you're just being lazy, and they need to exert some pressure on you to get you to do the correct thing, the advice they've found that actually works.

Sometimes—I suppose—people are being lazy.  But be very, very, very careful before you assume that's the case and wield power over others to "get them moving".  Bosses who can tell when something actually is in your capacity if you're a little more motivated, without it burning you out or making your life incredibly painful—these are the bosses who are a pleasure to work under.  That ability is extremely rare, and the bosses who have it are worth their weight in silver.  It's a high-level interpersonal technique that most people do not have.  I surely don't have it.  Do not assume you have it, because your intentions are good.  Do not assume you have it, because you'd never do anything to others that you didn't want done to yourself.  Do not assume you have it, because no one has ever complained to you.  Maybe they're just scared.  That rationalist of whom I spoke—who did not think he held power and threat, though it was certainly obvious enough to me—he did not realize that anyone could be scared of him.

Be careful even when you hold leverage, when you hold an important decision in your hand, or a threat, or something that the other person needs, and all of a sudden the temptation to optimize them seems overwhelming.

Consider, if you would, that Ayn Rand's whole reign of terror over Objectivists can be seen in just this light—that she found herself with power and leverage, and could not resist the temptation to optimize.

We underestimate the distance between ourselves and others.  Not just inferential distance, but distances of temperament and ability, distances of situation and resource, distances of unspoken knowledge and unnoticed skills and luck, distances of interior landscape.

Even I am often surprised to find that X, which worked so well for me, doesn't work for someone else.  But with so many others having tried to optimize me, I can at least recognize distance when I'm hit over the head with it.

Maybe being pushed on does work... for you.  Maybe you don't get sick to the stomach when someone with power over you starts helpfully trying to reorganize your life the correct way.  I don't know what makes you tick.  In the realm of willpower and akrasia and productivity, as in other realms, I don't know the generalizations deep enough to hold almost always.  I don't possess the deep keys that would tell me when and why and for who a technique works or doesn't work.  All I can do is be willing to accept it, when someone tells me it doesn't work... and go on looking for the deeper generalizations that will hold everywhere, the deeper laws governing both the rule and the exception, waiting to be found, someday.

 

Part of the sequence The Craft and the Community

Next post: "Akrasia and Shangri-La"

Previous post: "Mandatory Secret Identities"

Comments

sorted by
magical algorithm
Highlighting new comments since Today at 1:29 PM
Select new highlight date
Rendering 50/118 comments  show more

As an aspiring rationalist you've already learned that most people don't listen, and you usually don't bother - but this person is a friend, someone you know, someone you trust and respect to listen.

I've actually had some success with Other-optimizing, so I'm going to go out on a limb and defend it. Doing it well isn't easy and doesn't give you the quick ego/status boost you get from giving someone a pithy injunction. You need to gather enough information about the other person's goals to uniquely determine what action you take, essentially giving away some of your optimization power for the other person to use for their own purposes. Of course, this mostly eliminates the usual motivation (i.e. status) while also being vastly more difficult.

I'm with you, Saturn. Doing it well isn't easy at first, but I've found I've gotten quite good at it by mostly asking questions and keeping my mouth shut. I tend to act as an option-provider and a debugger. I let them do most of the actual determination of actions, and use my own power to help them realize the primary goals they're optimizing for, realize unconsidered courses of action that may lead to those goals, and challenge existing assumptions. I disagree about the status motivation though - when I've actually helped someone optimize, I feel like a real badass.

when I've actually helped someone optimize, I feel like a real badass.

Absolutely.

The point I was making was that dropping some unsolicited advice on someone carries an implication that the answer is obvious to you and the person you're "helping" is to whatever degree less competent, less informed, or less intelligent. When you get into for-real helping you might well find that this isn't actually the case.

Moreover, if you don't see this as a real possibility, you're almost certainly Doing It Wrong.

I agree with you that power brings blinders (as well as bringing some useful sorts of vision: I've watched more than one person improve their self-understanding, and their understanding of why organizations are structured as they are, once they got in a position of responsibility).

I also agree that people who have something work for them often run around recommending it way too much, with way too little attention to the person in front of them.

That said, when I get advice from people or books, and when I actually try the advice, it often works. Enough so that I should be ditching my current habits and trying out new forms a lot, if I want to actually be effective. I would have thought this would obtain for most people (and that most of us stay consistent in our habits for much the same reason that we stay consistent in our initial disagreements with epistemic peers -- inertia, fear of a status hit from changing, that sort of thing). But maybe people vary here?

If you could take ALL the advice from productivity blogs and have it ALL work for you, wouldn't it require less than a month to ascend to godhood?

If you could take ALL the advice from productivity blogs and have it ALL work for you, wouldn't it require less than a month to ascend to godhood?

Unless many of them are multiple ways to accomplish the same thing and therefore not cumulative even if they do work.

I'm not saying it all delivers promised miracles for me, I'm saying that enough of what I try works enough better than what I was doing as to be easily worth the costs of experimenting. There's nothing particularly optimal about my current habits; what works for others is often a better guide to what will work for me than is "what I happen to already be doing" (especially if the other is skilled at what they do, and/or is generalizing from what works for a large set of people); and the data and freedom that comes from trying new things and from watching the results helps. Also, most of the reason I don't do more real habit shifts is stuff in the vicinity of fear/inertia, given that it often helps when I do (and this has held even in some (most?) cases where someone insisted I really should change some particular trait/habit, and I insisted that they were wrong, though I realize this is a dangerous thing to say). I realize YMMV.

Hmmm...

I've lived with being pushed on by people with power over me my whole life. My parents were far more determined to see me graduate from college than I was, and they succeeded in ensuring that I did so, by supervising me to the extent that I was supervised in high school. And, to be honest, if they hadn't insisted that I do my homework and literally driven me to classes, I probably wouldn't have graduated.

In general, unless someone pushes me, all I do is waste time. I play video games, or Magic, or surf the Internet and write comments. Everything else, I have to be forced to do by someone. I've never learned how to force myself to work hard on something that isn't purely mechanical and that I don't feel like doing at the moment, because whenever I tried to fail, my parents just kept pushing harder and harder until I succeeded. Willpower? What a horrible, terrible concept! Why would any sane person want to do something they don't feel like doing, if they weren't being coerced into doing it? I don't need willpower. I have parents!

I have a tendency to divide activities into "things I want to do" and "things I do because other people make me do them", and I try to optimize the former at the expense of the latter. As Paul Graham put it:

When I was a kid, it seemed as if work and fun were opposites by definition. Life had two states: some of the time adults were making you do things, and that was called work; the rest of the time you could do what you wanted, and that was called playing.

I definitely have this mindset. If you have to pay someone to get something done, "obviously" it's not worth doing for its own sake; otherwise, people would get day jobs and pay you for the opportunity to do it in their spare time. As a side effect, if I suddenly found myself being paid to play video games, I'd start procrastinating over them, too.

Although I am currently 26 years old, I have no source of income and am still being supported by my parents. I am definitely at the mercy of my parents right now, but I accept this, because my parents just don't demand that much from me. (I put up with college coursework because it seemed better than getting a job - but I'll jump in front of a speeding car before I let myself get sent to graduate school.) If I were to get a job, I'd only end up increasing the amount of time spent doing things because other people are forcing me to, so I don't want a job. This, however, does not exactly make me a person of high social status...

Just to be clear -- I originally started mentioning things to you for the reasons you mention in this post, i.e., "I don't normally give out this much individual advice for less than $200/hour, but hey, this is Eliezer..."

However, after I (pretty quickly) realized that you weren't actually taking my comments any more seriously than you would random blog posts, I changed strategy, and focused on including information in my replies to you that would be useful to other people... which is why my replies to you now often end up pretty highly rated; in fact, they're usually my highest-rated comments. (It's of course also possible that people are more likely to read replies to your comments, or that I get status attributed by daring to advise you, or any number of other reasons.)

Anyway... once I noticed that you weren't actually listening, I stopped actually trying to teach you anything and started using your comments more as a springboard for teaching others, while maintaining the illusion that the advice was directed at you. Hope you don't mind too much. ;-)

(By the way, "different things work on different people" is bullshit when it comes to the brain. "My brain works differently from other people's" is not a valid extenuating circumstance: I don't accept it as an excuse from my clients, any more than Jeffreyssai would.)

I tried reading your blog posts and couldn't (allergic to your style), but I'm sorry to inform you that you haven't reached the level of universal generalizations as yet. The stories you make up to explain why your tricks work are not the deep answers which constrain both the rule and the exception; from other sciences I have learned what true general models of the human mind look like, and your explanations, I'm afraid, are not in that class. The fully general art of combating human akrasia has not been invented by you. Your clients are only the ones for whom your techniques happen to work.

I hope that having discovered some tricks that work for some people is enough honor for you; and that you do not need to claim that your tricks work universally in order to value them. And that it does not wound you too deeply, if there are some people for whom your advice does not yet work, and who you do not yet understand. This is not the counsel of despair: study the exception and the rule, and you may find the deeper law.

Of course you could decide that I'm just being lazy. (Laughs.)

I tried reading your blog posts and couldn't (allergic to your style)

It's not just you. pjeby's blog's style reads like a cross between a preacher, a used-car salesman, and a self-help booklet.

I'm glad he's found techniques that work for him and apparently many other people, I absolutely respect what he's doing, and he seems like a great guy overall... but his writing style borders on physically painful for me.

I'm sorry to inform you that you haven't reached the level of universal generalizations as yet.

My generalizations aren't, for the most part, in my blog posts, nor in most of my for-pay material, actually. Abstractions don't help most people take action. The only really important "theory" on my blog is The Multiple Self, which was where I first realized that I was being stupid to assume that my conscious mind had ANY direct control over my actions, given how late consciousness appeared from an evolutionary perspective.

Most of the other generalizations my work sits on top of can be found in General Semantics and NLP, anyway... they just don't help much in their raw form.

But here is a useful generalization: if you test autonomous responses, you can create techniques that work. If you're not testing, or not making use of your autonomous, involuntary responses (both mental and physical), you're utterly wasting your time.

More than half of my early blog posts are wastes of time, in precisely that sense. They were written long before I learned how to shut up and test, as it were.

The fully general art of combating human akrasia has not been invented by you.

Heck no. I've really only specialized in chronic procrastination and personality sculpting. Fighting akrasia was a label that people here applied to my work. I don't really believe in akrasia, anyway -- a better description would be anosognosia of the will. (That is, we explain our behavior as akrasia or failure of will, because we don't understand that our will isn't singular. And we do it for the same reason we see gods in the forest -- our built-in projections of mind and intention. When applied to self, they produce prediction errors.)

I hope that having discovered some tricks that work for some people is enough honor for you; and that you do not need to claim that your tricks work universally in order to value them.

I've discovered very little, actually. Most of what I've done has also been invented by other people (as I've sometimes discovered when somebody says, "hey, your stuff is kind of like author X"). All I've really done is systematize some things so that they're more teachable and repeatable, and try to replace mystical explanations with mechanical ones.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that all I've really done is take a very narrow subset of NLP and CBT that can be self-applied (by most people) with self-testing and don't require physical presence to be taught, and throw in a few heuristics about what to look for and what to apply them to.

Of course you could decide that I'm just being lazy.

For you to test something basic, like a submodalities of motivation exercise from an NLP book, would take you maybe 15 minutes... only slightly longer than it took you to squirt ice water in your ear. ;-)

Now, personally, I'm not sure if such an exercise would work for you. I've never been really good at doing submodality work on myself, though I'm okay at guiding others through it. But you need to understand that having trouble accessing something like your submodalities on your own, doesn't mean they aren't there.

What I'm getting at is that individual idiosyncracies only affect what techniques you'll be able to usefully self-apply; not what techniques will actually work. There are NLP techniques I still can't currently self-apply, and have to have someone else walk me through in order to do them, because I can't think about the technique and do the steps at the same time. That doesn't mean the technique "only works for some people" -- clearly I have the hardware the technique operates on, I just have limited fluency in accessing that particular hardware.

Similarly, there are techniques in my repertoire that some of my clients can't self-apply; I have to walk them through, or they have to use a recording or some sort of external aid. Some of these issues go away with practice, some don't.

The major insights I've had regarding self-help material is not that "some things work for some people and others don't" -- it's that:

  1. Some people can learn a particular technique from a particular book, and others can't,

  2. Some people can do a particular technique on their own, and others can't (although they may be able to learn to), and

  3. Self-help books usually barely whisper some of the critical mental and physical distinctions needed to make a particular technique workable, while most people have too many existing preconceptions shouting in their head, for any of those whispers to be heard.

The #1 most important thing in doing virtually any self-help technique worthy of the name is being able to pay attention to your unconscious, automatic responses, without adding voluntary thought or anosognosiac explanations on top of them. And in my experience, it's the hardest thing to learn to do on your own; and as far as I can tell, nobody (not even me) has made a systematic attempt to teach it. (So far, I just point it out to people when they're doing the wrong kind of thinking.)

But if you can pay attention to your responses, and you are disciplined about testing those responses, you can invent your own techniques. That's what I did, for a while, and then I started going back and re-reading self-help books, using the idea of testing my autonomous responses to validate which ones worked, and the skill of paying attention to autonomous responses in order to apply them in the first place.

And what I've found, for the most part, is that virtually all self-help techniques work for something, if used correctly. It's the "used correctly" that varies immensely from person to person.

Even some techniques that I thought were utterly stupid (e.g. EFT and Sedona) can be made to work, and I learned some interesting things from them. Mostly what I've noticed, though, is that the people teaching them have a tendency to leave out (or say only in a whisper), certain things that you need to make them work, or they fail to explain the common failure modes.

(The common failure modes are very similar, btw, across a wide variety of techniques; mostly they amount to trying to do things by willpower or conscious analysis that can only be accomplished by waiting for an autonomous un-willed response.)

Anywho... if you want to find universal models, I recommend you skip my blog and go straight to the source: your own brain. Start observing the responses you don't control -- the almost-subliminal flashes of memory and sensation that occur in response to pondered questions or the thought of taking a particular action. Experiment for yourself, and find out whether these responses are repeatable in response to the same stimuli, and what techniques actually produce changes in those responses, and your resulting behavior.

...and that was too abstract. As a writer, I'd recommend - though YMMV - that you try interlacing an abstract explanation like this one with a specific, concrete technique. I know nothing of NLP, so you needed to explain "submodalities of motivation" or at least link it (Google doesn't show how any such thing could be helpful). You're assuming knowledge of things I've never heard of, and would probably be allergic to most standard expositions of (I can't stand standard self-help writing style).

You don't seem to have a strong instinct for realizing what the other person already knows or doesn't know, but then most people appear to me to lack this instinct, which I suppose indicates that I possess a talent in this area. Unfortunately, that also means I have no idea how to advise people who lack that talent. You'd have to ask someone who started out without talent and developed skill.

As a writer, I'd recommend - though YMMV - that you try interlacing an abstract explanation like this one with a specific, concrete technique.

Yeah, that's what I'm doing in the rewrite of Thinking Things Done that I'm working on right now. Chapter 2 will start with the "thoughts into action" technique in my video, and use it as a demonstration of several specific principles about how thinking-for-action differs from ordinary "thinking". (In my previous arrangement, I had several chapters of theory before getting to the technique in chapter 6, but this way I think I'll actually be able to maintain a lot better theory-to-practice ratio throughout.)

I know nothing of NLP, so you needed to explain "submodalities of motivation" or at least link it

What you would do is think about something you're motivated to do, and something you "could" do, but are not motivated to do. (As opposed to being motivated to avoid or NOT do.)

Then, you observe what your autonomous representation of these actions are, and compare the representations. Do you see pictures? Hear sounds? Where are they located, what size, moving vs. still, etc. (WIkipedia's "Submodality" page has a list of typical qualities of these kinds.)

After you've identified the differences between the two, you can try changing your representation of the thing you're not particularly motivated by so that it matches the representation of the thing you are motivated by -- move it to the same place, same size, brightness, etc. etc. -- and observe whether you now feelmotivated to do that thing. You can also experiment with changing the various qualities, and noticing what effect it has on your felt-response to the idea.

This is not a permanent change -- there are other things you have to do to make it stick or to contextualize it appropriately. And you may have to tweak some things to do it at all; it helps to use more than two examples, I've found, even though submodality elicitation always seems to get taught with just two. Many people also have trouble paying attention to their images; I worked with someone yesterday who was much better focusing consciously on their sounds, and then their images changed in response to changing the sound qualities (including direction, volume, and location).

Anyway, while not permanent, it represents a simple demonstration of NLP's practical rendition of an idea that I believe originated with General Semantics: that is, our behavior is determined by our internal representation of concepts. It just so happens that NLP shows the driving representations aren't primarily verbal.

Which makes sense, evolutionarily. After all, we had to be able to decide things and act on those decisions long before we had language.

The hardest part of learning to do any NLP or similar technique is simply learning to "shut up" one's ongoing verbal analysis and argumentation long enough to actually pay attention to what the rest of your brain is doing... which is why a lot of the original NLP creators tend to speak very disparagingly of the conscious mind. (e.g. "Any conscious verbal statement of the client is to be treated as unsubstantiated rumor until and unless it is confirmed by an unconscious non-verbal response.")

But I'm digressing a bit. Submodalities are a basic building block of a wide variety of NLP techniques, and they're only one of NLP's building blocks. There are also plenty of ways to change submodalities without direct manipulation; I personally specialize in using questions that cause people to indirectly change their submodalities, on the basis that we change them indirectly all the time, and for a lot of people, that leads to less conscious interference... presumably because the verbal mind at least gets to ask the questions then. Whereas, direct submodality interventions leave the verbal mind free to critique itself and/or the process, making it impossible to actually pay attention, at least for me most of the times I've tried direct-manipulation techniques. Strangely, though, if I have someone else there to talk me through it, I can usually do them... answering someone else's real-time question seems to commit my attention better.

You're assuming knowledge of things I've never heard of, and would probably be allergic to most standard expositions of (I can't stand standard self-help writing style).

I understand, believe me. My allergy was more to doing things than to reading about them, though. I discarded techniques because I didn't like the theories.

Problem is, everybody discards techniques because they don't like the theories or the writing styles -- which is why there are so many hundreds upon hundreds of books that describe what are basically the same techniques, in slightly different styles. (Of course they're the same -- our brains are the same.)

You don't seem to have a strong instinct for realizing what the other person already knows or doesn't know, but then most people appear to me to lack this instinct, which I suppose indicates that I possess a talent in this area. Unfortunately, that also means I have no idea how to advise people who lack that talent. You'd have to ask someone who started out without talent and developed skill.

Yes. I've realized this year that I suck at this and other teaching-related skills, which is why I've been studying instructional development and why I've also started over on my book; it was halfway finished, but early feedback showed it wasn't reaching my goals for knowledge transfer OR motivating people to act on the knowledge that was transferred.

The #1 most important thing in doing virtually any self-help technique worthy of the name is being able to pay attention to your unconscious, automatic responses, without adding voluntary thought or anosognosiac explanations on top of them. And in my experience, it's the hardest thing to learn to do on your own; and as far as I can tell, nobody (not even me) has made a systematic attempt to teach it.

Actually, I think people have made systematic attempts to teach it. Those attempts were named 'Zen', and promptly drowned in a sea of mysticism and bullshit that also called itself Zen. A few years back, I was in a group where we did the 'sitting' meditation that you often see given to novices: sit still, focus on your breathing, and blank your mind for awhile. I observed that it was comfortable and calming, and thought that was the point. Then I read Crowley on Religious Experience, linked from Less Wrong, which said that you're supposed to maintain a posture so rigidly that it becomes progressively more uncomfortable until you break. Then I read something you wrote, about observing your own reactions, and I was enlightened: the purpose is to put your mind in a baseline state so that you can observe all the things which pull you away from it, and learn how to deal with them. (First acknowledge, then suppress them.)

Today, I made another connection and found a way to test whether you have this ability: songs stuck in your head. Sometimes songs that we hear repeatedly stay in our mind, and intrude on our thoughts. Suppose you recognize that you have a song stuck in your head, and consciously decide that you don't want it there. Does that decision have any effect? How long does it take before you stop thinking of that song, and if it resurfaces, how long does it last? Songs have built-in timing (you can count notes), so these things are relatively easy to measure. Now suppose you consciously decide that Politics is the Mind Killer, so you won't think about politics except in particular circumstances. If you later find yourself thinking about abortion or gun control, and your conscious mind declares "politics is the mind killer, I will stop thinking about this", does it work? I believe that these are the same skill, and that meditation, if done properly, builds that skill.

Actually, I think people have made systematic attempts to teach it. Those attempts were named 'Zen'

Ah, right. I should've said, in the self-help field, or more precisely, in the subset of the self-help field that doesn't appear to descend into irrational madness. Silly of me to forget Zen, since I've actually studied it -- and not just in the "read books and practiced at home" sense. I'm just reluctant to strongly recommend other people study it, because it sounds too mystical or "irrational". Perhaps I should change that. (My reluctance, I mean.)

Then I read something you wrote, about observing your own reactions, and I was enlightened: the purpose is to put your mind in a baseline state so that you can observe all the things which pull you away from it, and learn how to deal with them. (First acknowledge, then suppress them.)

Almost right. You don't suppress them, you let them go. Suppressing them would strengthen them, for the same reason that "not thinking of a pink elephant" doesn't work. And it's not so much a baseline state, as having a task upon which to concentrate. It doesn't matter what the task is; it's just easier to learn if the task doesn't involve any activity for you to get caught up in thinking about. Once you learn to get into the state, it's possible to keep it while doing other things. For example, the Zen center I attended in Dallas did walking meditation in between sessions of sitting. It would've been very hard to start with walking meditation, but it was relatively easy to stay in state during it.

Suppose you recognize that you have a song stuck in your head, and consciously decide that you don't want it there. Does that decision have any effect?

In my experience, none whatsoever. They last for days, and I've never found anything that gets rid of them, except replacing them with something else... which usually requires an external input, rather than any mental activity.

If you later find yourself thinking about abortion or gun control, and your conscious mind declares "politics is the mind killer, I will stop thinking about this", does it work? I believe that these are the same skill, and that meditation, if done properly, builds that skill.

Nope. Doesn't work that way. You can't decide not to have thoughts. All you get to choose is to refocus your thoughts on what you intended to focus on. Refocusing and detachment are the skills you get from meditation. (Detachment is also useful for mind-hacking, because it lets you separate observation of your response from engaging in the response.)

Think of it this way. Your mind is a table-driven state machine, constantly responding to the environment and to its own fed-back outputs. Normally, when thoughts come up, they loop back into the state machine as input, driving feed-forward behavior. You think, "this sucks" or "I'm bored", and that then feeds back into the machine and makes you think MORE about how much it sucks or what you could be doing instead of this boring task.

The skill of detachment is being able to notice that thought as a thought, and NOT feed it back into the machine. You refrain from "following the thought", and simply continue on your task. You're training a general response to all thoughts as "ah, that's an interesting thought, and now I'll continue with what I've already chosen to do."

What you have to understand is that fighting or trying to suppress the thought is just as bad as becoming immersed in it, because you're still creating a feedback loop, despite it being in opposition to the thought. You're still enmeshed in action-reaction, instead of remaining focused.

The skill you develop is also similar to something pickup artists call "cutting the thread" -- when an unpleasant topic of conversation arises, or somebody says something that leads away from where they want to go, they simply acknowledge the statement in a way that makes the person feel heard, and then continue leading the conversation where they want it to go. They don't feel obligated to either follow the thread, OR argue with it. (They also use the term "non-reactive", which is a good general term for this idea, I think.)

Non-reactivity is useful in that it strengthens willpower. In my work, though, I don't emphasize it as a way of developing willpower, but as a way of applying techniques that reduce the need for using willpower in the first place. That way, it has more leverage. You only need to be non-reactive enough to apply a technique, rather than striving for 24/7 nonreactivity.

You can't decide not to have thoughts.

I disagree, because I have a method for doing so which I believe is effective. I stumbled upon it accidentally, while doing a mental exercise. The point of the exercise was gaze control. Normally we look around automatically and unconsciously, so I went for a walk (on a familiar path with nothing to run into or trip over) and made an effort not to, to always keep my eyes in one particular position, and never divert my gaze. First, I went around looking only forward; then, looking almost straight up, navigating by peripheral vision and using treetops as landmarks. The key was, whenever I caught myself looking down, I would immediately close my eyes, reset, and resume. This both stopped me from continuing to look down and, more importantly, stopped me from thinking about the fact that I had done so.

You can do the same thing to unwanted thoughts, such as songs stuck in your head, as long as you have the right response prepared. First, identify the unwanted thought, and which parts of the brain it uses. In the case of a song, that's your audio short-term memory, and if it has lyrics, your language processing centers. Next, prepare a thought which uses the same parts of the brain. I'll call this a "reset thought". In this case, a short meaningless phrase will work. Test it by trying to think both the reset thought and the unwanted thought at the same time, to make sure you can't (alternating is okay though.) Next, reinforce the reset thought, by focusing on it exclusively for an hour or so. Finally, turn the unwanted thought into a trigger for the reset thought, so that both the unwanted thought and any meta-thought about the unwanted thought are forced out quickly. Repeat the reset thought until something else is ready to take its place.

Zen teaches students to use a short mantra as a reset thought. The important things are that it must be able to repeat in a loop, it must have a natural stopping point in which to let in the thought which follows after, and it must be simple enough for the area which is being reset to remember, without needing other parts of the brain to assist in recall.

YMMV, of course. I'm very interested in what you think of this, since you have data sources (students) which I don't.

(By the way, "different things work on different people" is bullshit when it comes to the brain. "My brain works differently from other people's" is not a valid extenuating circumstance: I don't accept it as an excuse from my clients, any more than Jeffreyssai would.)

Maybe so, but the particular bits of advice needed to produce a desired change are certainly different for different people. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I can tell, you haven't systematized this to any extent further than using your own intuition to pick something out of a bag of tricks you've collected. Now, the entire field of psychology currently works this way, and I've personally found some of your tricks useful. But if you want to be taken more seriously, I believe you should stop simply dispensing advice and start posting about ways we can speed up our search through advice-space.

Ha! Little did you know that I optimize other people's lives using advice I haven't even tried myself. (That way I'm not biased by my own experience.)

"Different things work for different people."

Living life, getting through the day, is obviously an enormously complex process. Whether we are rational or irrational, we make decisions based on a large number of short-cuts. These "short-cuts" have evolved over time and have their origins in our routines, our values, etc. However, since they don't completely capture our full decision-making system (i.e., don't reproduce every time the decision we'd make if we had enormous time and energy to decide each one), they introduce certain inefficiencies (or even inconsistencies).

I think that a lot of advice represents "hacks" for getting around certain built-in inefficiencies. It would be enormously trouble-some (and arguably counter-productive) to rewrite your whole meta-code, but a patch is worth adding, if it works.

Thus I think the reason advice works for some and not for others is because it is a patch for a particular (hopefully common) form of inefficiency, but the patch only works if you have that efficiency or if the source of the inefficiency is the same.

I had a friend in graduate school that had a mental breakdown and lost most of her short-cuts. It was a really amazing thing to watch her make decisions from ground zero. I think she appreciated the experience because, to a large extent, she had the opportunity to pick and choose which new short-cuts to assimilate. As an intelligent adult that was more or less X-rational as well, she proceeded in a very systematic way. The result was a very efficient but somewhat strange decision making process.

I had a friend in graduate school that had a mental breakdown and lost most of her short-cuts. It was a really amazing thing to watch her make decisions from ground zero. I think she appreciated the experience because, to a large extent, she had the opportunity to pick and choose which new short-cuts to assimilate. As an intelligent adult that was more or less X-rational, she proceeded in a very systematic way. The result was a very efficient but strange (e.g., oddly non-organic) decision making process.

Are you still in contact with this person, and would she have any interest in LW? It seems that experience might provide some fairly unique insights.

Indeed. She is the most X-rational person I know of (that I've met in person). Also, she is a mathematician. I will invite her!

Maybe we need a site like reddit for self-help tips. That way you could try the thing that worked for the most people first.

Even better would be an Amazon like recommendation system - 'other people who benefited from this tip also benefited from...'

I agree that there are many people running around who are overconfident with their advice because it happens to work for them. But could there also be people out there with potentially good advice who never talk about it because of underconfidence?

Personally, I relish all advice, good or bad. I would consider it worth to hear bad advice from 10 people in order to hear substantially good advice from one. I can just toss out the bad advice; it doesn't cost me much, and I'm pretty confident about my bullshit filter. Of course, this approach to advice may not work for everyone in every domain. If you don't have a good way of evaluating advice in a particular domain, then it would be difficult to filter out bad advice which could harm you. And if the person has power over you, then you can't throw out their advice so easily.

There have been some times where I've followed bad advice (usually some sort of oversimplification) that lead me to figure out some new things, to see the flaw in the advice, and to find my own way of doing things.

I support people giving advice, and just including YMMV caveats.

"And because I have encountered a great many people trying to optimize me, I can attest that the advice I get is as wide-ranging as the productivity blogosphere"

This is awesomely hilarious. People are constantly trying to optimize me too. Since I'm constantly trying to optimize myself, I kinda like it :). But it is true that they often seem very confident about what will work, when it doesn't for me.

The worst one is sleep apnea. Here I have a serious medical condition, confirmed by sleep studies, that I've tried several surgeries for, and I make it clear that this is the case on my blog...and intelligent people constantly, for years, have responded to my posts about it by suggesting random folk remedies for insomnia that don't address sleep apnea at all! Blows my mind, but I guess it's just what you are talking about here.

This is awesomely hilarious. People are constantly trying to optimize me too.

Hey, you know what I've discovered that really works to stop that?

...no, just kidding. So is that because they care about Seasteading or because you seem to them like such a rational person? Do you know?

Definitely not Seasteading. The sense I have is that it's a combination of my being openly into self-optimizing, and a prolific blogger. The former means I'm the kind of person who may listen or try their suggestions, and the latter means that all my difficulties in life are blogged and so people get the chance to make suggestions. I think people just really like offering advice (the warm glows of altruism and proving themselves expert / useful), and so all they need is an excuse and an opportunity.

Most of the time I don't mind, but sometimes I feel insulted when the level of research I've done on a problem and the level assumed by the suggestion vary wildly.

Reasonably good Other models are something I strongly suggest aspiring x-rationalists to work on. Among other things they let you mimic the talents of deep empathy and avoid many of the problems described in this post. It's one of the major benefits I've seen coming from serious rationality.

It requires seriously paying attention to individuals, and eventually groups of people, and periodically questioning all your assumptions about why they behave they way they do. And eventually it can open your eyes up about how your own mind works.

Just don't expect it to take less than a decade or two...