Hide table of contents

       1. Please tag your posts!

When I'm trying to do get up to speed on some forum topic, tags have been immensely usefwl to me. But I'm frequently frustrated by how many highly relevant posts go untagged. I can't help grumpily murmuring[1] to myself that it would cost less than a minute for the author to tag each of their posts, while I often end up spending hours trying to find the right search terms to locate them.

       2. Tag other people's posts!

And if you think some post is unusually good for a particular topic, consider strong-upvoting its "relevance" score.

I think that, on the margin, if we collectively spent more time tagging posts as we read them, we probably end up saving more time than we spend because it'll be much easier to find the posts we're looking for. And this is additional to the reading-value gained by people searching through tags. So unless you're a utility-monster, I think time spent tagging is usually worth it.

Oh no, I seem to have forgotten to tag this post. Exercise for the reader?

       3. Use the topics!

There's a case for browsing the front page and reading whatever catches your attention rather than guiding your search based on exactly what you think will be usefwl to you. But there's also a case for spending more time intentionally trying to find information that's relevant to what you're trying to do, especially if you think you've found a good path to follow. Besides, we're probably overly biased to read what's new  and popular compared to reading what we predict will have the most information value.

Rather than optimising our information diets based on what we think will be most usefwl, we often just read things because we want to "stay in the loop".[2] We don't want to be caught clueless about what's going on at any given moment, but how important is that really for what we're trying to do? Our value as thinkers is not defined by what we don't know, it's defined by what we do know and what we can produce.

“Rule thinkers in, not out.”

       4. Forum suggestion: Field to tag posts while writing it

Right now, you can't tag a post while you're writing it. You have to "save as draft" and then add the tags to the draft, or add the tags after you publish it. This is needlessly annoying. I suggest making it like this:

       5. Forum suggestion: No tags, no publish

The miniscule effort encouraged by making it mandatory is probably outweighed by the benefits many times over on average. Consider that the effort is a one-time cost, while the benefits accrue every time someone finds it usefwl. The costs are consistently modest for authors, while the benefits can be enormous for some readers (e.g. I'm doing a lit review and the tags help me counterfactually find the perfect post.)

So I suggest making it mandatory. Maybe like this:

You get a friendly reminder if you try to publish a post before tagging it.
  1. ^

    I don't endorse my own grumpiness, however! I appreciate your posts, and I would be even more gratefwl if you tagged them. Please! ^^

  2. ^

    I call it the "jabber loop". As long as we fear being exposed as clueless about something,[3] we're incentivised to read what we expect other people will have read, and what other people are likely to bring up in conversation.

  3. ^

    We almost exclusively see what people know, not what they don't know. You will notice every time you don't know something about what's mentioned in a conversation, but unless people speak up about their own ignorance (unlikely), you can't see what they don't know. So unless you have a solid underlying model, you may end up impostor-syndroming yourself into feeling useless. Lizka explains it best:

    This highlight the utter absurdity of being afraid of having our ignorance exposed, and going 'round judging each other for what we don't know. If we all worry overmuch about what we don't know, we'll all get stuck reading and talking about stuff in the Jabber loop. The more of our collective time we give to the Jabber loop, the more unusual it will be to be ignorant of what's in there, which means the social punishments for Jabber-ignorance will get even harsher.

    The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!

    So when I see someone bravely revealing their ignorance about something, I know they're an ally in the fight against the jabber loop. Put in extra effort to reveal what you don't know, and you're making it easier for others to do the same. Be the vanguard!

Comments1


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:
[comment deleted]0
0
0
Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f
LewisBollard
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
> How the dismal science can help us end the dismal treatment of farm animals By Martin Gould ---------------------------------------- Note: This post was crossposted from the Open Philanthropy Farm Animal Welfare Research Newsletter by the Forum team, with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post. ---------------------------------------- This year we’ll be sharing a few notes from my colleagues on their areas of expertise. The first is from Martin. I’ll be back next month. - Lewis In 2024, Denmark announced plans to introduce the world’s first carbon tax on cow, sheep, and pig farming. Climate advocates celebrated, but animal advocates should be much more cautious. When Denmark’s Aarhus municipality tested a similar tax in 2022, beef purchases dropped by 40% while demand for chicken and pork increased. Beef is the most emissions-intensive meat, so carbon taxes hit it hardest — and Denmark’s policies don’t even cover chicken or fish. When the price of beef rises, consumers mostly shift to other meats like chicken. And replacing beef with chicken means more animals suffer in worse conditions — about 190 chickens are needed to match the meat from one cow, and chickens are raised in much worse conditions. It may be possible to design carbon taxes which avoid this outcome; a recent paper argues that a broad carbon tax would reduce all meat production (although it omits impacts on egg or dairy production). But with cows ten times more emissions-intensive than chicken per kilogram of meat, other governments may follow Denmark’s lead — focusing taxes on the highest emitters while ignoring the welfare implications. Beef is easily the most emissions-intensive meat, but also requires the fewest animals for a given amount. The graph shows climate emissions per tonne of meat on the right-hand side, and the number of animals needed to produce a kilogram of meat on the left. The fish “lives lost” number varies significantly by