An overview of Putanumonit for new readers.
I write Putanumonit on a 7-14 day cycle of satisfaction and anxiety. When a post is done, I publish it with a mixed sense of relief and giddy expectation. Over the next week, I share links on LessWrong, Twitter and Facebook, and enjoy the rush of the views and comments rolling in. After a week … Continue reading In the Valley of Bad Mindfulness
Andrew Yang wants to bring Universal Basic Income to America, and he's running for president to do so. After hearing from him directly, I weakly support UBI but strongly endorse Yang 2020.
Ezra Klein thinks that his haters hate progress and equality. I think they mostly just hate him.
Before describing a philosophy of everything, it's important to distinguish between properties of reality and properties of minds.
Psychology has long stank of fake results that don't replicate. But it's not hard to sniff out the bad science with a few simple rules, and that gives reason to hope that the field will improve.
I am the very model of a self-recursive modeler My consciousness encompasses itself in many meta layers
Things I learned from a game theory party: why prisoner's dilemmas are not what they seem, why being smart is often worse than being the dumbest, and the virtues of trolls.
If someone is worse at their job than a drunk person with Google, why do they still have their job?
A photographic journey in Colombia.
Everything I believe in explained by a single chart I don't understand.
Should you pay off debt or invest the money instead? To answer this it's useful to think of debt as the opposite of a risk-free investment, and to put a number on the risk.
The third part of an extensive interview with Dr. Geoffrey Miller covers jealousy, polyamory, marriage, and mating.
The second part of an extensive interview with Dr. Geoffrey Miller covers troublesome research and troublesome ideology in psychology.
The first part of an extensive interview with Dr. Geoffrey Miller covers effective altruism, AI, and rationality.
Monty Hall isn't just a curious probability puzzle. It's a widely applicable demonstration of Bayesian thinking and rationality.
My first essay for Quillette builds on "The Context is Conflict" to explore the clash between decouplers and contextualizers, why everyone is a hypocrite, who's whose outgroup, how tribalism makes smart people less rational, and what the Intellectual Dark Web can learn about overcoming bias.
Some people think that there's always group conflict, some people don't. When the former meets the latter, there's group conflict.
Should we believe what is useful to believe over what it true? I attack this question from various angles: wrong "wrongness", murder-Gandhiism, the Gorilla Channel, and fake glasses.
[Caution: experimental].
