Here Elliot gives examples of how to make questions. Lots of them are short and simple. One was just “Why?”, which is close to saying “this section was confusing”.
I had seen this stream in the summer and it did help me some in writing more in response to Elliot’s articles.
I don’t really do anything philosophy on a regular basis, it’s sporadic. Depends on how broad “philosophy related” is though. I read in books most days.
Edit: Oh, I check the forum every day though.
If you don’t act in accordance with ET’s articles/advice, maybe that’s a disagreement you could bring up? E.g., I’ve seen ET post stuff about time tracking, weekly journaling, doing screencasts/livestreams/videos of yourself practicing philosophy and sharing those for criticism, etc.
If you’re not doing this stuff, it means that in practice you disagree with ET. Like you feel like it’s too much hassle to do these things and so they’re not worth it or you think it wouldn’t work for you or something. IOW, there’s some reason you’re not doing it (you can also use ET’s method for investigating intuitive disagreements to find out why you disagree with ET on these things and share that for feedback).
Is time management philosophy related? E.g., ET has done those podcasts about time tracking. Also, if you ever feel conflicted about how to spend time—e.g., procrastinating—then is that philosophy related? Also, how you prioritize stuff. Like even if you don’t feel conflicted about how you spend your time, others (like us! 
) might disagree with how you’re spending your time or what you’re prioritizing in life. This is beginning to veer into the issue of unbounded criticism though.
Also, do you use any techniques like time block planning or timeboxing? Do you leave a 33–50% buffer like I think ET and Goldratt recommend (IIRC)?
Etc., etc., etc.
You could share what books (and articles, videos, podcasts, any content) you read, what you’ve learned from them (or enjoyed about them), and your decision making process for selecting them. People might have criticism of your book selection method or reading priorities. (That’s something I’ve personally wondered about. There’s so many books. Is there some “algorithm” (so to speak) for ranking/prioritizing/deciding what to read vis-à-vis your goals. Maybe you could even apply ET’s multi-factor decision making stuff to deciding what to read? Idk. Could be good practice if applicable. Also, you could share what goals your information/media diet is aimed at optimizing. If you don’t know what goals you have, you could practice introspecting and practice ET’s method of investigating intuitions to find out. Even if your current intuition/preferences/goals feel embarrassing, you could practice being non-judgmental, handling criticism well, and/or changing your reading preferences. (Btw, changing one’s preferences is hard: recall The 10% Rule.))
Also, ET has talked about discussing what you read with others while you’re reading it (rather than waiting until you’ve finished the whole book). Do you do that? If not, why don’t you do that? (Cuz that’s another intuitive disagreement with ET you could bring up.)
I just remembered this line from Hugh Akston in Atlas Shrugged which I liked a lot and should probably start taking more seriously (my bold):
What is wrong with a philosopher running a roadside diner? Or a cigarette factory, as I am doing now? All work is an act of philosophy.
I remembered another quote (from Galt’s Speech):
your actions… are the products of the premises held by your mind
IOW, everything one does is a product of some ideas (including subconscious ideas) which could be wrong (could be criticized). So philosophy has a role there (I assume). IOW, perhaps nothing one does is outside the province of philosophy?
Thanks for sharing. I watched some of that video and it reminded me of the idea of reading each sentence as though one expects to disagree with it or assumes it’s wrong and therefore has to be convinced that it’s correct by thinking carefully about it. IOW, default disagree rather than default agree. (Apparently Jeff Bezos does this.)
Also, another idea I thought of for finding gaps in one’s feeling of agreement/understanding: would one be able to write it (or explain it adequately) oneself? If not, then perhaps one doesn’t have an adequate enough understanding to really have an intellectual right to say that one agrees. So perhaps after reading an ET article, one could record oneself trying to verbally summarize it—perhaps as though explaining it to a friend on the phone. Or try to write down one’s own version/paraphrase (without looking at the original article) or even just one’s own summary. I’d guess that this would be difficult because one probably doesn’t actually understand it anywhere near as well as one feels one does.
Also, another idea: brainstorm half a dozen examples or applications (if applicable) (e.g., this vid by ET on practicing philosophical concepts). If one can’t, then maybe one doesn’t understand the idea so well and therefore has no right to say one agrees with it.
Also, I already talked about this, but to repeat myself: if one doesn’t apply it to one’s own life or act on it (if applicable), then presumably one doesn’t actually agree with it or think it’s particularly valuable.
Elliot has recommended this in tutoring.
I have tried another technique which is to write before hand what I think about a topic I’m going to read. See the drop-downs on Introduction to Critical Rationalism - #66 by ActiveMind. The purpose there is to see if I’ll write something that contradicts the article, then it would be easy to see disagreements and confusions.
I had intended to do a rewrite like Elliot suggested but I think I forgot.
Oh, I didn’t see that. Thanks for sharing. Waiting one to four days seems like it’d be an extra good way to test one’s understanding. I’ll have to try it out next time I study a CF article. (Reading Elliot’s post, I see he also mentioned the verbal recording idea.)
Oh I like the sound of that one too. I hadn’t considered doing that before. I’ll have to give that a go too. Thanks for sharing your example.
Technically philosophy is involved in every choice you make, but I’m talking about things which would progress my philosophy skill or otherwise is more directly about philosophy like promoting philosophical ideas.
I do time tracking. That’s how I know I’ve done ~1.13k hours of philosophy.
I do daily journaling, but if I’m busy I don’t do it and then I get out of the habit. I really should journal anyway and just make a short entry if I don’t have much time.
I could do screencasts, but I’m a bit worried about privacy. I think I prefer writing logs of my learning.
You’re right. It’s probably a good idea to discuss the advice I’m not following.
I’ve tried timeboxing before but I like natural stopping points more. I think I would rather like a priority list. But I haven’t stuck with any scheduling method.
Maybe I don’t stick with any scheduling method because I’m overambitious. Or maybe I have bad TCS influenced ideas about following fun or avoiding self-coercion:
I’ve done that with: Studying The Goal and TOC [AM]. Also some of Elliot’s articles.
Also you might be making a mistake I’ve made:
Oh nice! That’s super impressive. Maybe I’ll try see if I can catch up and beat you over the next few years 
That makes me wonder whether putting that much time into philosophy is worthwhile/helpful—like whether it improves one’s life/thinking or has much practical value or whether it’s more just trusting it’ll pay off in the future (despite nobody apart from ET having reached his level).
(Btw I don’t mean to burden you with the feeling that you need to respond. I’m just wondering out loud. Feel free to ignore me. I hope I’m not being annoying lol. Or polluting the forum with half-baked wonderings/musings/digressions.)
In my case, I haven’t put in that much time yet, but a few benefits that come to mind so far (this is just straight off the top of my head—it’s not a premeditated or anywhere near a complete list): I think I’ve felt much more serene due to having a better understanding of inner conflicts due to ET’s intuition articles and also Rand’s stuff on integrating reason and emotion. I assume I’m less conflicted about other stuff too like morality, e.g., maybe if I was an altruist I might feel a bit conflicted about that. Also, explicitly valuing rationality is helpful (whereas pre-Rand & ET I never thought about rationality per se). Also second-handedness (I might’ve got sucked into chasing a prestigious career/life otherwise). I’ve found Goldratt’s weakest link idea helpful. Those are just a few things that come to mind off the top of my head. I notice the thing almost all of ‘em have in common is making the inexplicit explicit and therefore tractable (like Rand talks about in PWNI).
I think the main benefit, though, is just that it’s interesting/fun.
I’m still not sure what my longer term goal is though. Maybe become a professional philosopher like Elliot?
Speaking of that, for a long time I used to just keep a kind of bullet point journal where I’d list like 2–4 (or so) of the main things I did that day. It was for non-philosophy tasks though. It was sort of like a reverse or after-the-fact to-do list (i.e., listing the main things I actually did that day). I’ll start that up again (for philosophy this time). I wonder if I should post it on the forum. Or create a website of my own to do it on if it’d clutter the forum to be updating that every day. Or create a single topic where anyone/everyone can post daily (or weekly) updates/accomplishments. Though idk if there’s much point in sharing that.
Thanks for sharing. It makes me wonder how to balance doing careful critical reading vs quick “binge” reading (which reminded me of another post of yours I saw). Or when to do which.
I guess the solution/answer is that careful critical reading is ideal but quick reading is better than nothing. Also one can always reread later. I suppose I should do more quick readings.
You should find your philosophy activities reasonably good in the short term. They don’t need to maximize any short term benefits, but they shouldn’t feel/seem bad, boring, or like you’re putting up with philosophy to get future benefits.
You’re good. The forum could use more posts.
I’m more moral and honest than I would’ve been. I care more about principles. I’m better at taking criticism. I’ve gotten better at grammar.
I haven’t really done explicit work to integrate things into my life. I think that’s something you have to consciously work on if you want full integration and no contradictions. Like try it out in a situation, document it, reflect on it and try again. I have changed in some ways from just reading but there’s a lot of contradictions between how I act and what I think is philosophically correct.
Me too. I think it’s actually easier to catch some big picture things like a career than to catch those small and subtle ways you may have acted second-handed. Only some though. I don’t think it’s easy to stop all big, long term consequences from second-handedness. I guess there are ways for the small ones to build up into a big thing and also big decisions which are just hard to stay principled in.
Yes. Though I really want to live according to the philosophy and have it improve my life.
I’ve been thinking about whether I should post learning updates like these:
Yeah there’s so many of those (presumably way more than I realize).
One small example I remember from The Fountainhead was Loomis and Simpson being super nervous (too nervous to work properly) with Cameron looming over their shoulder (versus Roark being totally unaffected):
Cameron would enter the drafting room and stand behind Roark for a long time, looking over his shoulder. It was as if his eyes concentrated deliberately on trying to throw the steady hand off its course on the paper. The two other draftsmen [Loomis and Simpson] botched their work from the mere thought of such an apparition standing behind them. Roark did not seem to notice it. He went on, his hand unhurried, he took his time about discarding a blunted pencil and picking out another.
The same kinda idea is in an outtake of The Fountainhead (available in The Early Ayn Rand) via the character of Vesta Dunning (bold added):
She stayed away. And through the fury of her desire for him [Roark] there grew slowly a burning resentment. She found that his absence was a relief. It was a gray relief, but it was comfortable. She felt as if she were returning to a green cow pasture after the white crystal of the north pole. She went to parties with her friends from the theater, she danced, she laughed, she felt insignificant and safe. The relief was not in his absence, but in the disappearance of that feeling of her own importance which his mere presence, even his contempt gave her. Without him, she did not have to look up to herself.
At one point Vesta Dunning rationalizes: "After all, she said to herself, … one could not be a Joan d’Arc all the time.”
I kinda sympathize with Loomis and Simpson and Vesta Dunning here. But at the same time I feel like I would like to be Joan d’Arc all the time (so to speak).
And I imagine this tendency to strain to hold oneself to a higher standard when a boss or mentor is looking over one’s shoulder (and then slouching down to a lower standard when by oneself) is pretty widespread.
I think it’s also an example of not having “full integration and no contradictions” (to use your phrase)—because it involves having different (contradictory?) standards for how one acts by oneself vs when doing something in front of others. I imagine a fully integrated person like Roark wouldn’t have two different standards like that. They’d be Joan d’Arc all the time. Not just when someone is looking over their shoulder.
Yeah, I wonder if this might connect to Goldratt’s TOC. Like perhaps fixing all “those small and subtle ways” might be a waste of time (and too overwhelming to do anyway). Perhaps it’s better to just focus on the bottlenecks and big easy wins that help move one towards one’s goal(s). In which case one could just guiltlessly ignore the “small and subtle” stuff because it doesn’t prevent one from achieving one’s goal.
Yeah, me too. Like being Joan d’Arc all the time. (Though in order to actually improve my own life. Not just to LARP as a moral hero in my own eyes.)
Oh yeah I forgot about that curi thread. I guess we could create a thread like that on the CF forum. I’ll do that now.
Incidentally, this reminds me of the second-handedness issue. One risk with a learning updates thread is using it as an accountability buddy type thing (like the boss looking over your shoulder type thing). The real benefit would be getting feedback and ideas/tips that one wouldn’t have thought of by oneself.
It comes “naturally” to Roark. He doesn’t have to strain to be a Joan d’Arc (a hero) all the time. Joan d’Arc was a martyr though. So Vesta using Joan d’Arc as an example might Vesta making a mistake like Dominique in thinking that Roark’s cause is lost and that he’s a martyr. That also explains why Vesta would think it’s so difficult to act like Roark.
Thinking consciously about all those small and subtle ways would be overwhelming. But Roark doesn’t commit those errors. He has automatized first-handedness. First-handedness is so well integrated into his sense-of-life that second-handed things don’t even show up in his subconscious.
At some point as part of training I think you should analyze subtle ways you’re acting second-handed. First you do it slow and consciously then you practice until it’s automatic.
I’m not sure how TOC would apply, but global vs local optima applies to most things.
Yeah, I’ve been thinking the same thing. That has definitely been a factor in my projects. Like I’ve been more consistent and more focused on finishing on time since I publicly broadcasted I was doing a project. Ideally it should make no difference like it does for Roark.
I hope you do beat me 
Good point.
Oh that’s very insightful. That whole martyrdom aspect of Joan d’Arc didn’t occur to me as something that Rand might’ve been using to say something about Vesta’s psychology—but that makes sense, so I think you’re right.
Lol I guess I’m second-handed for having thought of it like that 
Nice catch. Thanks for pointing that out. Please point out more stuff if you notice it.
I’ve done writing on live streams. I guess a lot of people find that hard? But they can talk on stream, and they can also casually text with people. To me, writing isn’t harder than talking.
Can you remember the last time being nervous about performing anything in front of other people?
The more skilled you are the more I can learn from you. Generally the more skilled other people are the more value I can potentially get from them.
I think it’s fine to feel inspired by other people and want to do things well like them. You can see what’s possible and you can see what outcomes you might get. But ultimately you do want the source of your motivation to come from your own judgment of what is valuable.
I saw this article which had some observations that seemed relevant to this topic:
My bold:
[Nobel laureate Carl Wieman would] give a lecture [at Stanford]. Then, 20 minutes later, he’d follow up with a multiple-choice question from the material he had just covered. Handheld electronic “clicker” devices would record the students’ responses on his computer.
Most of the time, he says, "only 10 percent would actually remember the answer.
My bold:
“You give people lectures, and [some students] go away and learn the stuff. But it wasn’t that they learned it from lecture — they learned it from homework, from assignments. When we measure how little people learn from an actual lecture, it’s just really small.”
This reminded me of ET’s advice about how just reading a book is nowhere near enough (≤10%) and that one also needs to do lots of discussion and practice.
I think lectures are a pretty bad format unless you ask lots of questions. Like otherwise a recording I can pause and play at 3x speed is just better.