[Previous] curi's Microblogging | Home | [Next] Less Wrong Banned Me

Elliot Temple on September 13, 2020

Messages (30 of 265) (Show All Comments)

Try doing a more modern makeup look?

Are you using being male + wearing makeup as an excuse? The makeup you're doing is unrealistic for a woman to wear in public today. And there are men who wear makeup but you don't look similar to them either.


Anonymous at 11:12 AM on February 9, 2021 | #19909 | reply | quote

#19909

> Try doing a more modern makeup look?

How do I know if a makeup look is modern or not? I did some research this morning but it's not that much clearer to me. I found some mistakes I was making too, but IDK how they relate to modernity. (like my eyebrows are the wrong shape, which I could have avoided if I'd plucked them differently)

> Are you using being male + wearing makeup as an excuse? The makeup you're doing is unrealistic for a woman to wear in public today.

Excuse for what? Doing an outdated look or doing an unrealistic makeup routine or something else?

IDK what you mean be unrealistic, also. I see women down the street with full coverage + lipstick + eyeshadow. Is there something else that's unrealistic about what I've been doing?

I am planning on doing a lighter makeup routine soon, tho IDK if you would think that's more modern or more realistic.


Max at 9:24 PM on February 9, 2021 | #19918 | reply | quote

Someone I know is studying some CF stuff. They made a comment about being more confident in their decisions b/c of thinking-methods stuff. I replied with the following and I wanted to post it here b/c I think it helped me learn/clarify some CF stuff too:

---

> [... I quoted a thing here about being confident in decisions ...]

I don't know if you had the following in mind or not, but I think there's something pretty substantial here. There are two forms of confidence that occur to me that matter:

* confidence in a decision -- that it's a right / acceptable / good decision.

* confidence in *the error correction method associated with criticism and thinking*.

The first one is the typical, common sense, 'everyone gets it' meaning. The second one is the subtle one:

Confidence in a decision isn't just about the decision being correct. We're fallible creatures and there's ~always *some* knowledge that might exist that would change our minds.

Like, for any situation where you have type 1 confidence it's usually easy to think of new crazy-edge-case type knowledge that would change our mind. That demonstrates the fallibility, but we can't predict what the change-our-minds type knowledge would be for a given situation (in general: new knowledge is unpredicable and surprising; if it weren't, then it wouldn't be new!)

If you have **type 2** confidence, tho, then criticisms are *always helpful*. If you have confidence in your *methods* then a crit will always help you improve your decision; because a criticism is a reason that your previous judgement (idea) wouldn't work! *This* type of confidence is super-powerful, b/c it's the confidence to pursue a goal without fear. If you only have *type 1* confidence then -- being fallible creatures -- we can never be sure that an *individual decision* is right or not. But having *type 2* confidence means that *our methods of error correction* are good enough to handle *literally anything that reality can throw at us* and there *are no existentially fatal criticisms*, there are only *helpful* crits.


Max at 11:08 PM on February 9, 2021 | #19922 | reply | quote

You spent a lot of money on make-up without researching it first. Over $1200. Enough that you have to make lifestyle changes this month. Then you found out later that you made some bad purchases. E.g., in vlog 9 you said Mecca matched your foundation wrong. Or in vlog 6 you said you spent a lot of money on drugstore & amazon makeup, and then went and spent more money on Mecca make-up and thought you should have done Mecca first. It would have made more sense to research first before spending a lot of money.

You said you bought stuff off amazon without colour matching it first. But a lot of amazon makeup is available in drug stores. People can go colour math in drug stores first, and then buy it off amazon later. (At least they can in America. I don't know if Australia is different.)

Also I don't know why you are so negative about drugstores.

> I think my change of voice implies something negative, either: about the idea of calling it a "drug store"; or about ppl who shop at a drug store for makeup e.g. poor ppl, whores (referenced in vlog 5), lazy/careless ppl, etc; or mb just like an anti-american attitude in general (I hope not this one).

The one you hope it's not is the anti-American one. Do you think the other ones are all fine? Why do you assume people who buy drugstore makeup are poor or lazy/careless? Do you think not wanting to spend $1200 on makeup makes someone "poor"?

Also, why use the word "whores" at all? That's not a neutral word.


a girl anon at 3:30 AM on February 10, 2021 | #19925 | reply | quote

#19925 Thank you!

> It would have made more sense to research first before spending a lot of money.

Yes. There are two things that I think are important here:

1. My surprise at how expensive it was is, I think, a worthwhile thing to learn (and something I didn't predict)

2. I'm fortunate enough that $1200 will not have a terrible impact on my life. I was prepared to spend $ to do this, and I chose to prioritise other things (like my time) than doing research on buying makeup efficiently.

Because of these two things, I don't think it was a major error to spend $1200+.

> People can go colour math in drug stores first, and then buy it off amazon later. (At least they can in America. I don't know if Australia is different.)

Re Australia being different: sorta. Our drug stores are smaller. I've been to a CVS in SF and a Wallgreens in Vegas, both were much larger than any Aussie chemist I've ever seen. There are other places I could have gone to color match first, tho (e.g. Myer, which I referenced in like 2 or 3). In chemists they usually just have a printed pallet and some samples, but the samples can be unreliable. I could have sought more assistance from relevant friends or family members too. I definitely didn't do this the best way that I could have.

I also like the idea of paying for a product at the place you do color matching. Mainly this applies to the first instance. It could be an error in my thinking but I think it's also something that's low impact so I haven't thought much about it.

When I went to Mecca, part of the reason I was prepared to spend more $ was that I wanted to do these two weeks decently (not making too many compromises), and I had already decided that I didn't want the project to extend much (or at all) beyond two weeks.

> Also I don't know why you are so negative about drugstores.

If you're referring specifically to the comment/self-crit I made; I don't know either, that's part of the reason for the self-crit. If you mean a point in the video (other than me saying "drug store" in a funny voice) I would appreciate you linking me. I want to understand, too.

>> I think my change of voice implies something negative, either: about the idea of calling it a "drug store"; or about ppl who shop at a drug store for makeup e.g. poor ppl, whores (referenced in vlog 5), lazy/careless ppl, etc; or mb just like an anti-american attitude in general (I hope not this one).

>

> The one you hope it's not is the anti-American one. Do you think the other ones are all fine?

No. I think the anti-American attitude would be worse, tho, because it would point to a more substantial error in my thinking. I think the other errors would be easier to fix. I might be wrong, but based on my estimate of how big a problem it is, I think the anti-American attitude is a bigger issue.

> Why do you assume people who buy drugstore makeup are poor or lazy/careless?

I don't; the list I provided was meant to be brainstorming (so like an "or", not an "and"). They're attitudes that I guessed I could have, rather than things I think I believe. I apologize if that came off differently; that wouldn't be good, and I am interested in avoiding that sort of error in the future.

> Do you think not wanting to spend $1200 on makeup makes someone "poor"?

Not at all. I know I'm doing things from scratch (so spending a lot at once) and I know I haven't tried to spend money efficiently. WRT buying from a drug store, AFAIK that's the cheapest place to buy makeup, so *if* I have something against ppl who buy makeup at a drug store, then it might be that I actually have something against poor ppl. Without knowing what that attitude is, I can't fix it.

I think it's notable you didn't quote the last part of my self-criticising comment:

>> Anyway, I think changing my voice like that was bad and reflects something (which I don't fully understand atm) that is not a good thing. Like some bad or wrongly-judgmental attitude.

>> Ideas and crits (i.e. help) welcome

I specifically ask for help on this issue. I don't know if you're intending to be helpful or not, but I want to mention that at this point. You have helped me reflect from some PoVs I hadn't done so from previously, tho. Thx.

> Also, why use the word "whores" at all? That's not a neutral word.

The use of "whores" is a reference to the clip from *The Simpsons* I played in 5. I agree it's not neutral. In hindsight I don't think I provided enough context to justify using it; like if someone was reading that comment without watching ep 5 then it will seem like an error, whereas I might have been able to make the comment -- just as effectually -- without using the word.


Max at 4:38 AM on February 10, 2021 | #19926 | reply | quote

#19926

> #19925 Thank you!

>> It would have made more sense to research first before spending a lot of money.

> Yes. There are two things that I think are important here:

> 1. My surprise at how expensive it was is, I think, a worthwhile thing to learn (and something I didn't predict)

> 2. I'm fortunate enough that $1200 will not have a terrible impact on my life. I was prepared to spend $ to do this, and I chose to prioritise other things (like my time) than doing research on buying makeup efficiently.

> Because of these two things, I don't think it was a major error to spend $1200+.

Even if it made sense to spend $1200 and to prioritize saving your time, it could still be an error to have spent $1200 *in the way you did*. I'm not saying it was - just that this is a possibility to consider. For example, maybe you should have spent some portion of the $1200 on hiring someone for a consultation.


Anonymous at 6:21 AM on February 10, 2021 | #19927 | reply | quote

#19927

> Even if it made sense to spend $1200 and to prioritize saving your time, it could still be an error to have spent $1200 *in the way you did*. I'm not saying it was - just that this is a possibility to consider. For example, maybe you should have spent some portion of the $1200 on hiring someone for a consultation.

Ahh, yeah. gp. I think I have some bad ideas still about things like money and paying ppl. paying for a bit of consultation didn't occur to me; maybe because I though I could have asked some women I know and gotten some advice for free? Hmm.

** --- (the rest of this post is some free-writing / reflection / notes) --- **

This is mb also related to an attitude I have towards learning, where I like think it's better or more valuable to explore things on my own than bootstrap via other ppl's knowledge. Something like that. This is a bit funny, tho, b/c I am still bootstrapping via other ppl's knowledge (tutorial vids), just not as ~directly as Q&A that I could do via like an hour of consulting time.

There's some merit to that learning attitude generally. like DD made some significant improvements WRT structural knowledge & Popper's ideas. he thought about them in a diff way that had more reach (or something like that); they were more useful b/c of the way that he understood them, and that understanding was possible b/c he didn't do too much like direct bootstrapping from contemporary Popperians.

Mb that learning attitude makes some sense to do for a bit, or if you're a really good thinker and working on hard/complex philosophy, but I think I've just convinced myself that it's not worth doing most of the time (e.g. learning makeup).

** makeup content / cost / social dynamics **

Also, I mentioned vlog 9 at 4:27 that there's like a lack of critical content about makeup; I think if there was more critical content about makeup then that would have helped me spend $ more efficiently.

This relates to some social dynamics in makeup vids too, like the section from Stephanie Bailey that I quote/show in vlog 8 at 6:28 where she claims that most ppl can't afford to wear expensive foundation every day. Those sort of attitudes can suppress good tips like: if you are willing to spend $1000 then buy expensive staple products up front. Also, expensive foundation works out to like $1/day which isn't like totally negligible, but it's pretty affordable if someone wanted it. *Most* of the $ i spent at Mecca was on other stuff where cheaper alternatives aren't as impactful.


Max at 3:57 PM on February 10, 2021 | #19932 | reply | quote

no vlog update today

No vlog update today. I am not sure it's worth the overhead to keep producing videos; like I don't think there's that much more to learn that's substantial. (how would I know, tho?)

IDK if I'll do more in the way I've done them. I want to do a full routine a few more times at least (probably on weekend days), but I don't enjoy doing makeup and it's high overhead (both the routine and the video). I will at least make one more video wrapping things up, covering some of the topics I mentioned in 8 or 9. I'll probably leave the door open for further updates if I choose to produce them, but I'm not sure it's worth it.

I think it might have been an error to pursue the cadence that I did. There were good things about that, and I enjoyed making some of the videos, but producing videos is only an instrumental goal (the bigger goal being a track record). I ended up spending more time and energy on the project than I thought I would.

I think the project was successful even if I don't make more videos in the style I did; that is: I learnt a lot.

crits welcome.


Max at 3:09 AM on February 11, 2021 | #19941 | reply | quote

#19926

> I specifically ask for help on this issue. I don't know if you're intending to be helpful or not

yes, I was trying to be helpful. I wouldn't have bothered commenting if I wasn't trying to be helpful.

Your response was long and detailed but failed to actually engage with most of my points, so it was difficult to respond back to. You also seemed defensive, and doubted that I was even trying to help you, despite you opening with "Thank you!"

#19941

> I think the project was successful

what were your initial goals? what do you think you succeeded at?

In your first blog, you said stuff about wanting to have a better understanding of women. From what I did watch and read, I didn't think you had a good understanding of my position or experience, or that of other women I know. (Not saying you should continue the project, btw - I don't think you were doing the project in a way that would help you gain an understanding of women either.)

I also don't really think you are interested in discussing it, or interested in the crits that I have. (Not saying you should be - not everything has to be a high priority for you.)

And, again, I am writing this as an attempt to be helpful.


a girl anon at 2:14 PM on February 11, 2021 | #19944 | reply | quote

finished *it's not luck*

I finished reading *It's Not Luck*. This is the 4th Goldratt book I've read (the others being the goal, critical chain, and the choice).

I like it. I found the audiobook was lacking in some parts b/c there are some important diagrams early on and about half way through. I'm going to review those sections particularly b/c I want to make sure I understand the methods and can replicate them. I looked at the diagrams (I have the print version too) but didn't follow them closely.

I like the end; there's like a quick-fire recap of the methods used. There's some info that was new (or at least I didn't spot it earlier) like: goals have obstacles; big goals have intermediate objectives (which are in some ordered dependency graph with both parallel and serial parts); each intermediate objective should address some obstacle. That sounds pretty common sense, but the related method is the simplest and clearest method of planning I've heard. (the main part of the method that's missing from that list is the "what are you going to do about it?" question/answer.)

I also like the company strategy stuff in the last few chapters, especially the idea of deliberately leaving excess capacity in market segments to keep a company flexible. The idea is that company resources are general/flexible across multiple segments, then you can prioritise resources to service high-profit segments, tho make sure to always leave some excess capacity in each market segment. When market segments lose demand or become unprofitable, you can always move to another market segment b/c you left excess capacity (i.e. didn't full exploit that segment). It also means that you can avoid over-saturation of a market becoming a bottleneck (which could also mean that a company becomes like over-specialised for a segment; i.e. loses flexibility).


Max at 11:30 PM on February 11, 2021 | #19951 | reply | quote

#19944 I want to think about what I should say before I reply fully. I agree that I was defensive. I think some of my greatfulness was genuine, even tho I was a bit defensive. There's a conflict/tension there tho I'm not fully sure of the detiails yet.


Max at 11:34 PM on February 11, 2021 | #19952 | reply | quote

right/consistent/fast <-> eureka/chewing/integration

the steps of learning (do it right/once, do it consistently, do it fast) work well for explaining physical tasks like speedrunning, and some think-work like coding (where those 3 steps are sometimes said: make it work, make it right, make it fast). but how do those steps work for learning more abstract ideas (e.g. calculus, theory of constraints, philosophy)

I think the first way of thinking about the 3 steps can work for calculus (but it's harder to see for ToC or phil). With maths you generally get shown a method / proof / formula / etc and then get problem exercises of increasing complexity, and sometimes challenge questions. the exercises are usually: some basic ones first (completing them shows you can do step 1), then some complex ones (completing them shows you can use the idea consistently), then some more complex ones (completing them shows you can use the idea consistently enough to mix with prior/other techniques, mb with some creative thinking). challenge questions push your ability to use the idea (consistently and quickly) s.t. you can use the idea in creative new ways with previously learned ideas (this helps to create/improve structural knowledge). the progression of exercises maps well to correctly, consistently, quickly.

ToC and Philosophy ideas are harder to relate to the 3 steps. I think, roughly, the process follows the same pattern but doesn't make sense with those steps as they're currently named. WRT abstact ideas, what does "do it once" mean? excepting analogies to things like pyramids and structural integrity (like, engineering), how do the ideas of "consistency" and "speed" relate? They *sort* of have natural ~connotations, like consistency <-> 'know how/when to use the idea', and speed <-> 'idea has low overhead / it's intuitively able to be mixed with other ideas'. Even those ~connotations are a bit of a stretch, tho.

I think these steps are a good ~translation for the original steps: realise the idea (eureka), chew on the idea (so that you get a fuller understanding and develop structural knowledge), and integrate the idea (use the idea in new ways and in combination with your everyday thoughts). These steps don't necessarily happen all at once for a ~complete idea. Like "theory of constraints" is a big idea made up of lots of smaller chunks, some of which aren't documented in Goldratt's *The Goal*.

How can we still learn complex ideas, then? When we try to learn complex ideas, we learn them incrementally with smaller ideas. Some ideas are more easily learned than others, which can be due either to better (or more fortunate) structure, or because they're smaller ideas themselves (fewer components), or because they overlap a lot with stuff you already know. When ideas are big *and* unintuitive it means that there are a lot of new concepts that you need to learn all at once. That's hard. Sometimes it get's easier if you realise an instrumental goal that let's you use a subset of the idea (e.g. ToC applied to factories, rather than the full ToC). You can't rely on that, tho; a shortcut like that isn't always available.

The biggest idea you know is basically your full mind, and it's made up of lots of smaller ideas (sub-ideas), which are themselves still massive and complex compared to their sub-ideas, etc.

Learning complex ideas can have a long first step, and might involve some chewing on smaller ideas. When you get the big eureka moment it's because you've integrated the smaller ideas. I think the chewing process for the big idea will help work on integration for the smaller ideas, too (you can still have work to do with the smaller ideas *after* you start using them).

Note: I *think* I am using 'chewing' and 'integration' in the objectivist sense, but IDK. If I am not I would appreciate someone letting me know.


Max at 1:04 AM on February 12, 2021 | #19953 | reply | quote

a small contribution to (the discussion/work that is) CF's integration

DD says in BoI something like: some subset of objectively true ideas implies all other objectively true ideas. This make sense; if there's some ~objectively true and complete body of knowledge to describe reality (infinite or not), and progress is moving us towards that body of knowledge, then things that are ~true (in the everyday CF sense: they work) will overlap more and more, like they will imply parts of each other and they can be ~easily integrated.

one way that i thought about this after reading BoI was the idea of a "stand alone complex" (the subtitle of s1 of the anime *ghost in the shell*). The way i imagined things in my mind was like a graph of ideas/explanations that connected to each other. those idea-nodes only connect if they don't contradict. there are like 'bubbles' of ideas that are compatible with one another; all the bounded ones are parochial, but the single unbounded one (finite atm but forever growing and unbounded) is like the 'biggest self-supporting collection of ideas'; the "stand alone complex" (SAC).

integration is like creating stronger interconnections between the idea-nodes in that graph, and reducing the number of nodes via ~unification (not that this lessens the ~magnitude/measure of the SAC of ideas).

Goldratt has a lot of good ideas in his books, and concepts like 'excess capacity and how it relates to constraints' helps us understand the core of falliblism: that we can still 'know' things even if there are problems and ultimately all ideas will be refuted by ever-better ideas. it helps us answer why it's okay to use newtonian gravity in a toy simulation.

This sort of thing has already been integrated and expanded upon by IGCs, breakpoints, yes/no, and curi's other work.

I wrote this in part because I am continually surprised by the convergence between ideas as I learn more about CF and it's antecendents. I love it; it's great.


Max at 1:24 AM on February 12, 2021 | #19954 | reply | quote

#19954

> Goldratt has a lot of good ideas in his books, and concepts like 'excess capacity and how it relates to constraints' helps us understand the core of falliblism: that we can still 'know' things even if there are problems and ultimately all ideas will be refuted by ever-better ideas. it helps us answer why it's okay to use newtonian gravity in a toy simulation.

Can you explain more about how “excess capacity and how it relates to constraints” helps us understand “that we can still 'know' things even if there are problems and ultimately all ideas will be refuted by ever-better ideas”? That connection sounds interesting but I don’t get it.


Anne B at 6:06 AM on February 12, 2021 | #19960 | reply | quote

Makeup Mastery?

Max, do you think you achieved *mastery* of some significant, new things in your makeup project? If so, you could list those. If not, I think you should have higher standards and stop overreaching.

Can you self-evaluate the correctness of any of your new makeup knowledge with similar confidence to your self-evaluations of counting to three or judging whether the word "with" is spelled correctly? Those are examples of what mastery looks like.

The same goes for all your other philosophical work. Keep it simpler. Practice things. Aim for mastery. Aim for a low error rate where correct criticisms are uncommon, surprising and treasured.

Consider what you do have mastery of and build on it. Plan out projects intentionally with goals and trees, keeping issues like mastery and overreaching in mind.


curi at 12:35 PM on February 12, 2021 | #19963 | reply | quote

#19963 Where are the 5+ successful past projects at 90% of the size, complexity and difficulty of the makeup project? And at 80%, and 70%, and 60%, etc., all the way back incrementally to simple projects like crawling to a location as a baby.


curi at 12:51 PM on February 12, 2021 | #19964 | reply | quote

#19964 You don't have good examples of what success looks for to compare your project to. There's a huge gap from the makeup project to your most similar projects that are clear, confident, decisive, unambiguous successes.

And these are not new things that I'm saying.

Start way smaller, get quick, clear wins, and iterate. Start with multiple successful (micro) projects per day. Finish 100+ in a month with a not-decisive-clear-success rate under 10%. Establish a baseline of what you can do that way and get the iteration started.


curi at 12:57 PM on February 12, 2021 | #19965 | reply | quote

re: Makeup Mastery?

#19963

> Max, do you think you achieved *mastery* of some significant, new things in your makeup project?

No.

I think I got better at some things (some makeup related, some video production related, some people/social related). Even if I gained mastery over those things, I don't think they're *significant* compared to the size of the project or the project's goals. I think that relative scale matters, e.g. mastering teeth-brushing is significant if the project is like 1-2 hours long (mb split up), but it's not significant if the project is days or weeks long or way bigger in scope.

It's not worth me spending 30+ hours on something just to get a relatively small skill like doing video editing quickly (relative to filming + copying + rendering), or knowing whether lipstick is applied well/badly. It's nice that I have those skills now, but I could have used movies or stock footage and just practiced editing them to learn that skill in a few hours. (I don't think I mastered those anyway, but I am consistent in some ways.)

> If not, I think you should have higher standards and stop overreaching.

It just occurred to me that 'high standards' and 'high ambitions' are, in some ways, contradictory. Or mb not contradictory, just that it's easy to mistake the two and, when they are mistaken, it can be really bad for the project (i.e. it'd fail).

> Can you self-evaluate the correctness of any of your new makeup knowledge with similar confidence to your self-evaluations of counting to three or judging whether the word "with" is spelled correctly?

No.

Not for anything significant, at least. Super basic stuff maybe, but a lot of that is just common sense.

A case in point is my claim that Mecca did color matching wrong (against my face, not my neck). I have an explanation for that, but I only learned it after like 8 days of watching videos about makeup, and I don't know other ways of checking if I'm right or not besides like asking ppl. I have lots of ways of checking 1,2,3 and the spelling of "with".

> The same goes for all your other philosophical work. Keep it simpler. Practice things. Aim for mastery.

I think I lack some of the skills needed to self-eval. If I think about trying to self-eval on e.g. Goldratt stuff, IDK how I can do that besides writing about it to find contradictions or holes in my understanding. Discussion helps, too, but that's not self-eval anymore. Convergence and non-contradiction with other knowledge is good, too, but I think that's more like a hint than self-eval; it doesn't help to decisively find that I'm doing something wrong. Finding contradictions does tho.

I think there might be some like good general methods that could help with self-eval of philosophical work, but I'm not sure of them. Like I suspect they're out there but don't know what they are yet.

Mb writing bridging explanations (roughly: doing integration) is a good way to self-eval some. Feels like that's only a partial strat tho.

> Aim for a low error rate where correct criticisms are uncommon, surprising and treasured.

This struck me as really important.

I think my mindset around criticism still has some serious issues, like I value crits a bit but I can't tell quickly and reliably if crits are correct, surprising, and valuable. Sometimes I can, but those are exceptions, not the norm. I think mb I am still chewing on the idea that crits are valuable/desirable. I know they are in a bunch of explicit ways, but the idea isn't fully integrated w/ my mindset yet.

I think I wasted some opportunities when replying to 'a girl anon' that I could have made better use of, but IDK exactly how.

An issue for me atm is that I can tell when crits are uncommon and surprising, but I don't treasure them. yet (i hope).

-----

Notes: I feel like mb some of my paragraphs that expand on my 'No' answers are like excising things or evasive but I'm not really sure. I wanted to write more than just 'no' and to think a bit about the ways that minor successes are used to justify major failures. If there's dishonesty in those paragraphs then I don't think I know how to expand honestly, yet. Mb they're okay as reflections. i also wanted to reconsider whether I should think of the makeup project as successful via writing things out, and I am changing my mind on that, but there's more to do.

Ctx: I thought off and on about this reply for approx 6 hrs. So I did slow down some. I didn't write down a goal for this reply, tho. It's much easier to think of goals for posts that aren't replies compared to posts that are replies. I guess I put some of my goals for the reply in 'notes' above, but IDK if I had all those in mind before starting, or if I added them later on / retroactively.


Max at 9:13 PM on February 12, 2021 | #19969 | reply | quote

kb layout + accidental post -- postmortem

I posted #19969 before I meant to. I don't think it's obvious since I was in the final stages of editing. On my KB layout at the time (I have just changed it now) I had tab next to enter on the right thumb pad. this meant that I could accidentally hit <tab> then <enter> when I meant to just hit <enter> or just <tab>. i've avoided this sort of proximity issue in the past (predicting the error and avoiding some key locations b/c of it), but it's something that I should have known to avoid.


Max at 9:22 PM on February 12, 2021 | #19970 | reply | quote

#19960

> Can you explain more about how “excess capacity and how it relates to constraints” helps us understand “that we can still 'know' things even if there are problems and ultimately all ideas will be refuted by ever-better ideas”? That connection sounds interesting but I don’t get it.

yes. i think this would be good practice for me so I want to write a bit about it.

first, tho, do you agree with the second bit you quoted? i.e.:

>> the core of falliblism: that we can still 'know' things even if there are problems and ultimately all ideas will be refuted by ever-better ideas.

(I included a bit extra of the quote for context)

If you don't agree with that then I guess that something I write that directly responds to your request would not be very useful to you.


Max at 9:27 PM on February 12, 2021 | #19971 | reply | quote

afternoon project - SMM2 level

this is a project plan that should be achievable in an afternoon/evening (today). my method is based on things i've learnt from curi and method at the end of *it's not luck*

**goal:** produce a fun SMM2 level that teaches and demonstrates the 3 steps of learning: do it right/once, do it consistently, and do it fast.

**ctx:** I own SMM2 and have a little experience with the level editor. I have played 10-20 hrs of SMM2 and am reasonably familiar with the game modes, their features, enemies, interactions, etc. I've done a bit of planning and pre-thought about this, including some exploratory level creation last weekend. I drew up a level concept last night that I think can work -- that was something I wasn't sure about for a while.

**obstacles:**

1- lack of knowledge about vertical levels and camera lock

2- haven't tried to create the level, mb there are inconsistencies with the features I need (e.g. vertical + rising lava in SMW or New SMB modes)

3- haven't uploaded a level before and don't know the process

4- might not have left enough time today

5- it might take me too long to clear the level if it's challenging

6- the level might be too easy so it doesn't effectively teach ppl anything

7- i might not be able to fit enough height in the level to make it interesting and challenging for the player

8- the level is boring or frustrating

9- ppl don't like it

10- i need a level concept+design

11- rising lava might not be fast enough to be challenging (used to demonstrate step 3 in learning process)

12- level isn't challenging

**intermediate goals/objectives:**

- learn about SMM2 level editing via the in-game lessons and supplementary stuff like YT vids; solves obstacles 1,2,3

- work quickly on things that matter (aesthetics last), pay attention to avoid inefficient creation patterns (e.g. use copy-paste); solves obstacle 4 and partially 5

- integrate quality of life features: good checkpoints, avoid lengthy resets, losing progress, softlocks, etc; helps solve obst 5,8

- 3 1-ups + THX, helps solve obst 9

- ensure there's a decent level of challenge, even for experienced players, helps solve 6,8,9

- use doors sparingly and only where necessary. helps solve 7; note: doors could be added at the end to help with quality of life stuff if I'm under the limit of 4 doors.

- **done** come up with a level design/concept to iterate on, solves obst 10.

- use tracks and saws, podoboos, or spinning fire things to create the necessary time pressure, if required, solves obst 11. i can also research more ways to create time pressure and look at what ppl have previously done (e.g. by searching for specific speedrun levels)

- adjust position of blocks to make jumping up harder if it's not hard enough, solves 12 (could also make the gaps in the ledges shorter to make jumping up a bit harder, or add spikes in strategic places to make the jumps a bit more challenging, put higher standards on the players method, and create tension)

I might not need to solve obst 5,7 and I only need partial success with 8,9 (I don't need to please everyone)

most of the intermediate goals are about level design stuff and already include some knowledge i have about level design. I could do exploratory learning if obst 8,9 is an issue at the end.

at this point I chose to re-read *it's not luck ch 26*. I noticed that there's a q Julie asks that I didn't write in my notes during this chapter: "Do you have enough intuition about the subject?" similar to Alex, my answer is "I think so." after reading the chapter I think my next steps in the project are to plan the order I'm going to meet intermediate goals (and the corresponding actions, but that's fairly trivial and can be done ad-hoc), and then to execute on the plan.

**sequence of actions:**

- do the relevant SMM2 tutorials, identify gaps in my knowledge or things I'm unsure of, and supplement with more SMM2 tutorials and/or watch relevant YT vids

- refine the level design with my new knowledge and decide things like possible game modes and the required maps (I think particular backgrounds/level-themes are required to do vertical levels the way I want to). ideally I should have several options for game mode and level theme combinations that can let me achieve the goal.

- create a prototype level without quality of life features to verify the design can work

- iterate on design if necessary, do additional research if necessary (in general I can do this after any step)

- refine the prototype level and include the quality of life features

- test the level start-to-finish and evaluate it against the goal. iterate as described if need be.

- refine and polish the level, test again, add aesthetic stuff if I have time.

- publish the level.

there are some trivial steps I haven't included like 'name the level', 'write the level description', 'turn on my switch', etc. don't think it's necessary to document those, tho. I can do all that with excess capacity and they can be done at any point (except like turning on the switch, etc).

**level design prelim**

the main tech the level teaches is to reliably climb up a cliff via 1-block wide ledges

note: the 2nd image is of the sub-world and the note on the bottom right that's a bit cut off says "enuf time for player to use pipe to reset".

**meta-goal of the project**

my meta-goal for this project is, having now planned it, to not need to alter the plan but still complete the project. if I fail this goal, then my goal will fall back to altering the plan, documenting what went wrong/what I missed, and continuing with the plan. (I might have to alter it more than once.) another way to put this goal is that this project and plan has a low error rate.

doing this plan took approx 1hr


Max at 10:27 PM on February 12, 2021 | #19972 | reply | quote

SMM2 afternoon project success

I went through my plan and successfully uploaded the level 3hr 15min after I finished planning, so 4 hrs and 15 min all up.

level code **GL0-1HH-MVF**

I iterated on the level mostly while uploading, which took 45 min. There were some difficult jumps that I made easier; particularly at the end, and I reduced the difficulty of the 'consistent' phase to be more forgiving to the player since the hazards aren't meant to actually kill the player at that point, tho they can still die if not careful (that's deliberate).

the rest of the level dev was done fairly incrementally; I didn't change much after I put down an initial design and did some short play-testing (to make sure jumps worked and there wasn't any cheese).

I included 2 challenge areas, the first one of which is secret.

The second challenge area is right at the end and can kill the player if they're not careful. if they're really good then they will have been able to keep the mushroom this far, so it's easier.

the entire course, including secrets/challenges, can be done without damage.

I didn't alter the plan, but I think I had some oversights: I didn't plan for experiment/prototyping to overlap with the game-mode/level-theme choice. as it turns out there's a lot of flexibility here so the initial stuff I chose worked fine, but I should have planned some for some experimenting there. realistically it'd probs be okay to include it in the 'prototype' step I planned, but I feel like I should have included it. i count this as a minor error that I should be conscious of when doing future plans.

another minor error I made was spelling 'consistent' with an 'a': 'consistant' in the level. that error was also made in the diagrams I uploaded before.

I am surprised by how smoothly and quickly everything went compared with my past level-creation explorations.

I'm reminded of a line from *It's Not Luck* (ch29):

> We didn’t have time for mistakes, so we had to spend extra time planning!


Max at 2:06 AM on February 13, 2021 | #19974 | reply | quote

I recorded a video of the SMM2 level for anyone who is curious but doesn't have SMM2: https://s3.wasabisys.com/xert/2021-02-13_22-44-18.mp4

I recorded it with a capture card but didn't use HDMI throughput so there was a bit of input latency; it's not as difficult/inconsistent as it looks in the vid.


Max at 4:07 AM on February 13, 2021 | #19975 | reply | quote

#19971

>> Can you explain more about how “excess capacity and how it relates to constraints” helps us understand “that we can still 'know' things even if there are problems and ultimately all ideas will be refuted by ever-better ideas”? That connection sounds interesting but I don’t get it.

>

> yes. i think this would be good practice for me so I want to write a bit about it.

>

> first, tho, do you agree with the second bit you quoted? i.e.:

>

>>> the core of falliblism: that we can still 'know' things even if there are problems and ultimately all ideas will be refuted by ever-better ideas.

>

> (I included a bit extra of the quote for context)

The statement seems reasonable to me. I can't think of anything better. But saying I agree with the statement seems like it would require more knowledge of fallibilism and epistemology than I have.


Anne B at 6:46 AM on February 13, 2021 | #19978 | reply | quote

> #19927

> ** --- (the rest of this post is some free-writing / reflection / notes) --- **

> This is mb also related to an attitude I have towards learning, where I like think it's better or more valuable to explore things on my own than bootstrap via other ppl's knowledge. Something like that. This is a bit funny, tho, b/c I am still bootstrapping via other ppl's knowledge (tutorial vids), just not as ~directly as Q&A that I could do via like an hour of consulting time.

> There's some merit to that learning attitude generally. like DD made some significant improvements WRT structural knowledge & Popper's ideas. he thought about them in a diff way that had more reach (or something like that); they were more useful b/c of the way that he understood them, and that understanding was possible b/c he didn't do too much like direct bootstrapping from contemporary Popperians.

> Mb that learning attitude makes some sense to do for a bit, or if you're a really good thinker and working on hard/complex philosophy, but I think I've just convinced myself that it's not worth doing most of the time (e.g. learning makeup).

I think you have some really big mistakes in your thinking here. They are the kinds of mistakes that could be affecting all the other learning you are doing too, so it's worth actually thinking about and figuring it out. It's not specific to the context of makeup (which is where it came up).

I know you identify that you may have a mistake in your thinking. But I think the mistakes are worse/bigger than you realize.

I just wanted to note this because I have seen other mistakes in your writing & learning processes that I think may be caused by this same line of thinking.


trying to be helpful at 12:57 PM on February 13, 2021 | #19985 | reply | quote

re: 19985 by 'trying to be helpful'

#19985 I think what you're saying is that the part of my learning attitude "where I like think it's better or more valuable to explore things on my own than bootstrap via other ppl's knowledge" has problems. (There could be other problems related to the other stuff I said too, but the above is like the essence of it?)

I originally had trouble understanding your msg because I *thought* I rememberd/knew what I wrote, but after re-reading it, I didn't. I thought I had said something more like 'this is a part of my thinking that has a mistake' but really I just said 'this is a part of my thinking'.

Part of the reason I thought I'd said something more self-criticising is that I've talked a bit with curi about it in the tutorials and I've made some posts about it here, e.g. #18021 (I ctrl+f'd for 'exploratory' to find that, but I didn't find other examples, so I may not have posted about it as much as I thought.)

I think your msg is saying that, even if I have posted about this problem and mb recognise it a bit, that it's a bigger problem than I realise and has bigger impacts than I realise, even still. Also that if I want to get better at learning and thinking then I have to address this mistake as somewhat of a priority because it's a major error.

Does this line up with what you meant?

(my goal with this post was to ask the right q's that would give answers that let me figure out if I understood what you said or provide some way fwd if I still didn't understand)


Max at 4:41 PM on February 13, 2021 | #19986 | reply | quote

> #19985

> I think your msg is saying that, even if I have posted about this problem and mb recognise it a bit, that it's a bigger problem than I realise and has bigger impacts than I realise, even still. Also that if I want to get better at learning and thinking then I have to address this mistake as somewhat of a priority because it's a major error.

> Does this line up with what you meant?

Yes, that is what I meant. I know you recognize it as a problem. But I don't think that your view goes far enough. You still think there is merit in doing things from scratch, not building off of other people's knowledge.

I think you noticed a mistake in your thinking, but your analysis seems kind of like you think you are taking a thing that is good in a general way, and applying it in an area where it isn't good.

You aren't taking the mistake seriously enough - you are downplaying it, when you should be emphasizing it.

I think this mistake has come up in other places. You said something in discord the other day:

> I ~never look at solns for coding or maths stuff.

I think that view is mistaken, and is related to the mistake I am talking about in this post. You value starting from scratch, figuring things out on your own, not building off of existing knowledge. I don't think that is the best way to learn.


trying to be helpful at 8:11 PM on February 13, 2021 | #19987 | reply | quote

(This is an unmoderated discussion forum. Discussion info.)