10 ms·

This is an important corollary of Paul's essay that I wish he mentioned. Sometimes when you update your model of the world significantly, you still have a cache

This is an important corollary of Paul's essay that I wish he mentioned. Sometimes when you update your model of the world significantly, you still have a cache of previously computed facts that were computed using the old model. You have to clear out that cache and recompute with the new model, and that takes a significant amount of time. Often, rereading is a core part of that, since it forces you to revisit a lot of source material and recompute.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
gatehouse 12y ago
For an example of this, ask yourself: What is the world population? The longer it has been since you checked, the further off the number will be. https://www.google.com/search?q=world+population https://www.google.com/search?q=world+population
- jimbokun 12y ago
  My kids recently caught me claiming the world population is 6 billion people. Having learned the number more recently, they had the more accurate value.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- argumentum 12y ago
  Unless you've checked the number enough to have realized a pattern (in this case a growth rate).
  - marcosdumay 12y ago
    People don't grasp exponential growth[1]. That pattern will be useful for a very short time, and then you are wrong again. And then, when you finally accept that you don't grasp it and start calculating with a formal growth rate, the growth rate suddenly changes. [1] Nobody does. Some people know they don't, some are completely naive, the others lie to themselves. The first group have a chance of dealing correctly with it.
    - palimpsests 12y ago
      wait, did you just cite yourself?
      - drdeca 12y ago
        I think that's just meant to be a footnote.
    - Houshalter 12y ago
      Population growth isn't exponential. The rate of population growth has been steadily declining since the 1960's, and I believe the world population is expected to level out around 9 billion people in a few decades.
- shliachtx 12y ago
  While you make a good point (that one always needs to ensure the facts they know/take for granted are correct and haven't changed), it doesn't seem that is what he is referring to. The need to reread and reconsider books, ideas, etc. is not to check if the facts have changed, but to make sure you didn't miss a point because of lack of knowledge or bias. For example (on a very basic level), I find that if I reread a book on a programming language after using it for some time I notice things which I missed on a previous reading or wasn't able to appreciate due to lack of familiarity with the language. The same can apply to history - or any other study - where one only appreciates certain details after understanding the larger picture and surrounding events. For this reason there lies an advantage in both rereading the same book (immediately or after some time) by itself and reading after studying more on the topic from other sources.
scobar 12y ago
"The same book would get compiled differently at different points in your life. Which means it is very much worth reading important books multiple times." For me, this quote was the most powerful. I strongly and immediately agreed, yet I hadn't consciously considered the idea before. I now ask myself the question, "Which ones were the important books?" Some seem obvious, but I may have a deeply rooted worldview established a long time ago that needs to be reevaluated. I may have read books that added support to that worldview, and have since forgotten from where that support came. I'm not very well read yet, but I have a question for those of you who are. What are some methods you utilize to remember which books are the important ones? Edit: The comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8753656 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8753656 contains a great idea. I agree that taking notes and writing a journal can be great solutions, but I don't often read the notes and entries I've written. A personal wiki that is searchable and contains references seems very interesting.
- sillysaurus3 12y ago
  What types of books are important to you?
  - walterbell 12y ago
    Questions vs. Answers: http://kiriakakis.net/comics/mused/a-day-at-the-park http://kiriakakis.net/comics/mused/a-day-at-the-park
  - scobar 12y ago
    >What's "important"? (That may seem like a misguided question, but it's not.) I'm not certain if this question was meant for me directly. If it was rhetorical, I apologize for misunderstanding and answering. I prefer not to define "important" in this context to avoid excluding any definitions subjective to those who may respond to my question. That way, I may learn both what makes a book important to someone and tips on remembering which were important. Edit: Now that I know the question was intended for me, I'll provide a little more depth to my answer. The first thought I had when considering what makes a book important is how strongly it resonated within me, and the intensity of my emotions when reflecting upon what I've learned or how my perspective changed shortly after reading it. I know those stronger emotions may derive from a bias I had at one point in my life, and may no longer have. Therefore, I can't help but think my definition is wrong because it's relative to the period in my life which I read the book. So some books that were important before may not be now. That's why I was curious to learn others' definitions of "important" books, and how to identify them for rereading.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- MichaelGG 12y ago
  You're overestimating the difficulty of Facebook by over a factor of 50. Not to mention similar systems already existed. In fact, this is the first time I remember someone claiming that actually building the FB initial product was challenging (versus timing, acting on the idea, marketing, etc.) Edit: parent comment was saying it's so much easier to with work with inexperienced people, and that an experienced "corporate" dev couldn't make Facebook if all the screens were given to them.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
jayro 12y ago
"Research shows that even when news reports have been retracted, and we are aware of the retraction, our beliefs are largely based on the initial erroneous version of the story. This is particularly true when we are motivated to approve of the initial account." - http://mindhacks.com/2011/05/04/why-the-truth-will-out-but-doesnt-sink-in/ http://mindhacks.com/2011/05/04/why-the-truth-will-out-but-d... Original Paper: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/16/3/190 http://pss.sagepub.com/content/16/3/190
- mherdeg 12y ago
  I've always wanted a short name for this phenomenon, where a lie takes hold and never leaves no matter how thoroughly it is debunked. Maybe the 'swift boat effect'?
  - blake8086 12y ago
    Perhaps "cached thoughts"? http://lesswrong.com/lw/k5/cached_thoughts/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/k5/cached_thoughts/
  - ademarre 12y ago
    Cached confirmation bias
  - diydsp 12y ago
    It's the importance of first impressions.
- aswanson 12y ago
  This is what makes so many people getting "breaking" sensational headlines from partisan blogs so dangerous. It becomes calcified reality for the vast majority of people; most folk are not hygenic with their belief structures. I actively seek disconfirmation of my beliefs, but most people seek reinforcement only.
  - jayro 12y ago
    Yep! How facts backfire - Researchers discover a surprising threat to democracy: our brains "In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger." http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/?page=full http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/...
noonespecial 12y ago
Worse still many of these are formed in childhood from large misunderstandings. I'm constantly finding myself "closing out" old bogus lines of thought decades old.
- bentcorner 12y ago
  I've argued with grown adults about childhood facts learned in error. It's frustrating, although I'm certain I have beliefs of my own that are still incorrect.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

gatehouse 12y ago

For an example of this, ask yourself: What is the world population? The longer it has been since you checked, the further off the number will be. https://www.google.com/search?q=world+population https://www.google.com/search?q=world+population

jimbokun 12y ago
My kids recently caught me claiming the world population is 6 billion people. Having learned the number more recently, they had the more accurate value.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
argumentum 12y ago
Unless you've checked the number enough to have realized a pattern (in this case a growth rate).
- marcosdumay 12y ago
  People don't grasp exponential growth[1]. That pattern will be useful for a very short time, and then you are wrong again. And then, when you finally accept that you don't grasp it and start calculating with a formal growth rate, the growth rate suddenly changes. [1] Nobody does. Some people know they don't, some are completely naive, the others lie to themselves. The first group have a chance of dealing correctly with it.
  - palimpsests 12y ago
    wait, did you just cite yourself?
    - drdeca 12y ago
      I think that's just meant to be a footnote.
  - Houshalter 12y ago
    Population growth isn't exponential. The rate of population growth has been steadily declining since the 1960's, and I believe the world population is expected to level out around 9 billion people in a few decades.
shliachtx 12y ago
While you make a good point (that one always needs to ensure the facts they know/take for granted are correct and haven't changed), it doesn't seem that is what he is referring to. The need to reread and reconsider books, ideas, etc. is not to check if the facts have changed, but to make sure you didn't miss a point because of lack of knowledge or bias. For example (on a very basic level), I find that if I reread a book on a programming language after using it for some time I notice things which I missed on a previous reading or wasn't able to appreciate due to lack of familiarity with the language. The same can apply to history - or any other study - where one only appreciates certain details after understanding the larger picture and surrounding events. For this reason there lies an advantage in both rereading the same book (immediately or after some time) by itself and reading after studying more on the topic from other sources.

scobar 12y ago

"The same book would get compiled differently at different points in your life. Which means it is very much worth reading important books multiple times." For me, this quote was the most powerful. I strongly and immediately agreed, yet I hadn't consciously considered the idea before. I now ask myself the question, "Which ones were the important books?" Some seem obvious, but I may have a deeply rooted worldview established a long time ago that needs to be reevaluated. I may have read books that added support to that worldview, and have since forgotten from where that support came. I'm not very well read yet, but I have a question for those of you who are. What are some methods you utilize to remember which books are the important ones? Edit: The comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8753656 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8753656 contains a great idea. I agree that taking notes and writing a journal can be great solutions, but I don't often read the notes and entries I've written. A personal wiki that is searchable and contains references seems very interesting.

sillysaurus3 12y ago
What types of books are important to you?
- walterbell 12y ago
  Questions vs. Answers: http://kiriakakis.net/comics/mused/a-day-at-the-park http://kiriakakis.net/comics/mused/a-day-at-the-park
- scobar 12y ago
  >What's "important"? (That may seem like a misguided question, but it's not.) I'm not certain if this question was meant for me directly. If it was rhetorical, I apologize for misunderstanding and answering. I prefer not to define "important" in this context to avoid excluding any definitions subjective to those who may respond to my question. That way, I may learn both what makes a book important to someone and tips on remembering which were important. Edit: Now that I know the question was intended for me, I'll provide a little more depth to my answer. The first thought I had when considering what makes a book important is how strongly it resonated within me, and the intensity of my emotions when reflecting upon what I've learned or how my perspective changed shortly after reading it. I know those stronger emotions may derive from a bias I had at one point in my life, and may no longer have. Therefore, I can't help but think my definition is wrong because it's relative to the period in my life which I read the book. So some books that were important before may not be now. That's why I was curious to learn others' definitions of "important" books, and how to identify them for rereading.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

MichaelGG 12y ago
You're overestimating the difficulty of Facebook by over a factor of 50. Not to mention similar systems already existed. In fact, this is the first time I remember someone claiming that actually building the FB initial product was challenging (versus timing, acting on the idea, marketing, etc.) Edit: parent comment was saying it's so much easier to with work with inexperienced people, and that an experienced "corporate" dev couldn't make Facebook if all the screens were given to them.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

jayro 12y ago

"Research shows that even when news reports have been retracted, and we are aware of the retraction, our beliefs are largely based on the initial erroneous version of the story. This is particularly true when we are motivated to approve of the initial account." - http://mindhacks.com/2011/05/04/why-the-truth-will-out-but-doesnt-sink-in/ http://mindhacks.com/2011/05/04/why-the-truth-will-out-but-d... Original Paper: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/16/3/190 http://pss.sagepub.com/content/16/3/190

mherdeg 12y ago
I've always wanted a short name for this phenomenon, where a lie takes hold and never leaves no matter how thoroughly it is debunked. Maybe the 'swift boat effect'?
- blake8086 12y ago
  Perhaps "cached thoughts"? http://lesswrong.com/lw/k5/cached_thoughts/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/k5/cached_thoughts/
- ademarre 12y ago
  Cached confirmation bias
- diydsp 12y ago
  It's the importance of first impressions.
aswanson 12y ago
This is what makes so many people getting "breaking" sensational headlines from partisan blogs so dangerous. It becomes calcified reality for the vast majority of people; most folk are not hygenic with their belief structures. I actively seek disconfirmation of my beliefs, but most people seek reinforcement only.
- jayro 12y ago
  Yep! How facts backfire - Researchers discover a surprising threat to democracy: our brains "In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger." http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/?page=full http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/...

noonespecial 12y ago

Worse still many of these are formed in childhood from large misunderstandings. I'm constantly finding myself "closing out" old bogus lines of thought decades old.

bentcorner 12y ago
I've argued with grown adults about childhood facts learned in error. It's frustrating, although I'm certain I have beliefs of my own that are still incorrect.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]