Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Demodex mites: Large and neglected group of wild animals, published by Mai T on January 27, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum.

Content warning

This article contains information about the human body that some readers may find uncomfortable. There is nothing graphic, but there is detailed information about a genus of human parasites.

Summary

Demodex mites are arachnids who live their entire life cycle on/in human skin. Basically every human seems to have numerous mites living on them. Rough estimates suggest that there could be thousands or even millions mites living on each human face, meaning trillions living on all human faces.

It seems likely that Demodex mites are frequently killed by human activities, including bathing, tattoos, the use of light therapy, the use of some medicines, and possibly makeup (though I wasn't able to confirm the effects of makeup with experts).

Given the scale and neglectedness, this may make Demodex mites a potentially impactful focus for future animal advocacy strategy (though perhaps less impactful than other wild invertebrate interventions). This could be relevant for EAs and researchers interested in wild animal suffering. The first step would be to do a bit more research on some key uncertainties.

It's unclear whether Demodex mites are sentient because nobody has researched this question. Given evidence of sentience in other groups of invertebrates and the immense number of Demodex mites who are alive at any one time, it seems plausible that we should be giving serious consideration to their interests.

Research direction: A literature review on arachnid sentience, in the style of Gibbons et al (2022), would be helpful here.

Another uncertainty is whether Demodex mites are on parts of the bodies that have not been well-sampled in scientific studies (e.g. arms, hands, legs, stomach).

Research direction: It would be quite easy to resolve this using a lens that you can buy for ~$420 USD plus your smartphone. This could be a great little project for a small team of volunteers, like a university EA group.

Beyond the implications for animal advocacy movement strategy, Demodex mites may also have implications for the ethics of personal lifestyles. I'm updating in the following ways: I will no longer conduct activities that could kill Demodex mites that I do purely for pleasure (for me, this includes tattoos on my head and upper body, and maybe face makeup). I will continue to do essential activities like bathing and receiving health treatments (e.g. laser therapy, antibiotics) despite the possibility that doing so will kill Demodex mites.

You may or may not want to do anything about this. After all, many human activities similarly affect the lives of invertebrates (e.g. driving, composting food, gardening, sanitation).

I know having concern for the interests of skin mites might seem pretty wild to many people. To me, trying not to kill Demodex mites seems comparable to trying not to step on ants when it can be avoided, which is something that many people (particularly EAs and animal advocates) find sensible. Obviously, this hinges on one's beliefs about the moral value of mites, compared to other animals.

Demodex mites

What are they?

Demodex mites are arachnids who live on and in human skin.

There are two main species that live on humans: Demodex folliculorum and D. brevis. There are other species that live on other animals.

How common are they?

It is very plausible that 100% of humans have Demodex mites (other than newborn babies).

Many studies that have recorded prevalences around 20-80% using visual identification methods.

But one study found genetic evidence of Demodex mites in 100% of humans participating in the study.

There are two possible explanations: genetic sampling is better than visual identification, so ~100% of humans have...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Pain relief: a shallow cause exploration, published by Samuel Dupret on January 27, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum.

This shallow investigation was commissioned by Founders Pledge.

Summary

This report is a shallow cause exploration, completed in two weeks, which expands on our previous work considering pain as a potential cause area (Sharma et al., 2020). Here, we attempt to explore the relationship between pain and subjective wellbeing (SWB) more directly, both conceptually and quantitatively.

First, we try to calculate a conversion rate between self-reported pain intensity and SWB measures. However, the limited literature provides us with two potential conversion rates: a 1-point change on a 0-10 pain scale could lead to either a 0.1-point or 1-point change on a 0-10 SWB scale. Choosing one or the other leads to drastically different results when evaluating the cost-effectiveness of pain treatments.

Second, we assess the severity and scale of chronic pain in terms of life satisfaction to be large. However, we think this is likely an underestimate which will benefit from further evaluation.

Third, we offer some novel back-of-the-envelope calculations for the cost-effectiveness of several interventions to treat pain. We conclude - in agreement with Sharma et al. (2020) - that providing opioids for terminal pain and drugs for migraines are potentially cost-effective interventions. We add an analysis suggesting that psychotherapy for chronic pain could be moderately cost-effective if it can be deployed in ways that reduce costs (task-shifted, grouped, and/or digital), although we doubt it would be as cost-effective as psychotherapy for depression. We also present other interventions which we are more uncertain about but we think are worth researching further.

There are many interventions we were unable to review. Reviewing the medical literature on pain was more time intensive than for our other projects because most meta-analyses evaluated their evidence as “moderate to low” quality. Furthermore, our subjective judgement was that these meta-analyses were of lower quality than the work we typically review from the fields of economics, psychology, and global health.

The most valuable directions for further cause prioritisation research are (1) narrowing our substantial uncertainty about the conversion rates between pain scores and SWB measures, and (2) investigating the potential of advocacy campaigns to increase access to opioids.

Outline

In Section 1 we define pain and present how it is measured.

In Section 2 we explore the relationship between pain and subjective wellbeing.

In Section 3 we model the scale and severity of chronic pain in subjective wellbeing terms.

In Section 4 we present potential interventions to treat pain.

In Section 5 we present our recommendations for future research and conclude with the key takeaways from the report.

Notes

This report focuses on impact in terms of WELLBYs. One WELLBY is a 1 point change in life satisfaction for one year (or any equivalent combination of change in life satisfaction and time). In some cases, we convert results in standard deviations of life satisfaction to WELLBYs using a 2 point standard deviation on 0-10 life satisfaction scales (i.e., 1 SD change is the equivalent of 2 point changes on a 0-10 life satisfaction scale). This naive conversion is based on estimates from large scale data sets like the World Happiness Reports. See our post on the WELLBY method for more details.

The shallowness of this investigation means (1) we include more guesses and uncertainty in our models, (2) we couldn’t always conduct the most detailed or complex analyses, (3) we might have missed some data, and (4) we take some findings at face value.

Our calculations and data extraction can be found in this spreadsheet and GitHub rep...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Pain relief: a shallow cause exploration, published by Samuel Dupret on January 27, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum.

This shallow investigation was commissioned by Founders Pledge.

Summary

This report is a shallow cause exploration, completed in two weeks, which expands on our previous work considering pain as a potential cause area (Sharma et al., 2020). Here, we attempt to explore the relationship between pain and subjective wellbeing (SWB) more directly, both conceptually and quantitatively.

First, we try to calculate a conversion rate between self-reported pain intensity and SWB measures. However, the limited literature provides us with two potential conversion rates: a 1-point change on a 0-10 pain scale could lead to either a 0.1-point or 1-point change on a 0-10 SWB scale. Choosing one or the other leads to drastically different results when evaluating the cost-effectiveness of pain treatments.

Second, we assess the severity and scale of chronic pain in terms of life satisfaction to be large. However, we think this is likely an underestimate which will benefit from further evaluation.

Third, we offer some novel back-of-the-envelope calculations for the cost-effectiveness of several interventions to treat pain. We conclude - in agreement with Sharma et al. (2020) - that providing opioids for terminal pain and drugs for migraines are potentially cost-effective interventions. We add an analysis suggesting that psychotherapy for chronic pain could be moderately cost-effective if it can be deployed in ways that reduce costs (task-shifted, grouped, and/or digital), although we doubt it would be as cost-effective as psychotherapy for depression. We also present other interventions which we are more uncertain about but we think are worth researching further.

There are many interventions we were unable to review. Reviewing the medical literature on pain was more time intensive than for our other projects because most meta-analyses evaluated their evidence as “moderate to low” quality. Furthermore, our subjective judgement was that these meta-analyses were of lower quality than the work we typically review from the fields of economics, psychology, and global health.

The most valuable directions for further cause prioritisation research are (1) narrowing our substantial uncertainty about the conversion rates between pain scores and SWB measures, and (2) investigating the potential of advocacy campaigns to increase access to opioids.

Outline

In Section 1 we define pain and present how it is measured.

In Section 2 we explore the relationship between pain and subjective wellbeing.

In Section 3 we model the scale and severity of chronic pain in subjective wellbeing terms.

In Section 4 we present potential interventions to treat pain.

In Section 5 we present our recommendations for future research and conclude with the key takeaways from the report.

Notes

This report focuses on impact in terms of WELLBYs. One WELLBY is a 1 point change in life satisfaction for one year (or any equivalent combination of change in life satisfaction and time). In some cases, we convert results in standard deviations of life satisfaction to WELLBYs using a 2 point standard deviation on 0-10 life satisfaction scales (i.e., 1 SD change is the equivalent of 2 point changes on a 0-10 life satisfaction scale). This naive conversion is based on estimates from large scale data sets like the World Happiness Reports. See our post on the WELLBY method for more details.

The shallowness of this investigation means (1) we include more guesses and uncertainty in our models, (2) we couldn’t always conduct the most detailed or complex analyses, (3) we might have missed some data, and (4) we take some findings at face value.

Our calculations and data extraction can be found in this spreadsheet and GitHub rep...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: 11 heuristics for choosing (alignment) research projects, published by Akash on January 27, 2023 on LessWrong.

I recently spoke with Dane Sherburn about some of the most valuable things he learned as a SERI-MATS scholar.

Here are 11 heuristics he uses to prioritize between research projects:

Impact: Can I actually tell myself a believable story in which this project reduces AI x-risk? (Or better yet; can I make a guesstimate model that helps me estimate the microdooms averted from this project?)

Clarity of research question: Can I easily explain my core research question in a few sentences?

Relevance of research approach: Will my research project actually help me reduce uncertainty on my research question? When I imagine the possible results, are there scenarios where I actually update? Or do I already know (with high probability) what I’m likely to learn?

Mentorship: Would my mentor be able to give me meaningful guidance on this project? If not, would I be able to find one who could?

Feedback loops: Will I be able to get feedback within the first week? First day? Will I have to wait several weeks or months before I know if things are working?

Efficiency: How efficiently will I be able to collect information or run experiments? Will I need to spend a lot of time fine-tuning models? Is there a way to do something similar with pretrained models, so I can run experiments 10-100X more quickly?

Resources: WilI this project need datasets? Large models? Compute? Money? How likely is it that I’ll get the resources I need, and how long will it take?

Excitement: How much does the project subjectively excite me? Do I feel energized about the project?

Timespan: How long would it take to do this project? Would it fit into a window of time that I’m actually willing to devote to it?

Downsides/capabilities externalities: To what extent does the project have capabilities externalities? Could it increase x-risk?

Leaveability: How easy would it be to leave this project if I realize it’s not working out, or I find something better?

Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: 11 heuristics for choosing (alignment) research projects, published by Akash on January 27, 2023 on LessWrong.

I recently spoke with Dane Sherburn about some of the most valuable things he learned as a SERI-MATS scholar.

Here are 11 heuristics he uses to prioritize between research projects:

Impact: Can I actually tell myself a believable story in which this project reduces AI x-risk? (Or better yet; can I make a guesstimate model that helps me estimate the microdooms averted from this project?)

Clarity of research question: Can I easily explain my core research question in a few sentences?

Relevance of research approach: Will my research project actually help me reduce uncertainty on my research question? When I imagine the possible results, are there scenarios where I actually update? Or do I already know (with high probability) what I’m likely to learn?

Mentorship: Would my mentor be able to give me meaningful guidance on this project? If not, would I be able to find one who could?

Feedback loops: Will I be able to get feedback within the first week? First day? Will I have to wait several weeks or months before I know if things are working?

Efficiency: How efficiently will I be able to collect information or run experiments? Will I need to spend a lot of time fine-tuning models? Is there a way to do something similar with pretrained models, so I can run experiments 10-100X more quickly?

Resources: WilI this project need datasets? Large models? Compute? Money? How likely is it that I’ll get the resources I need, and how long will it take?

Excitement: How much does the project subjectively excite me? Do I feel energized about the project?

Timespan: How long would it take to do this project? Would it fit into a window of time that I’m actually willing to devote to it?

Downsides/capabilities externalities: To what extent does the project have capabilities externalities? Could it increase x-risk?

Leaveability: How easy would it be to leave this project if I realize it’s not working out, or I find something better?

Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Moving Toward More Concrete Proposals for Reform, published by Jason on January 27, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum.

Epistemic status: uncertain, unsure of the extent that I mean this as a practical proposal vs. a thought experiment to make certain observations, aware I could improve this but also aware that it should be timely

Timing note: Most of this was written before Doing EA Better was released, and is largely based on public events on the Forum. It is not specifically in response to that post, and is not really about possible epistemic reforms at all.

Summary

This post suggests that discussions of possible reforms relating to governance, deconcentration of power, and transparency have often been relatively unhelpful due to a lack of specificity. It suggests raising modest funding for the creation of more developed proposals, with the broader EA community taking the lead on the project. The post presents various reasons I think this proposal has value even if one assumes the underlying reform proposals lack merit. It explains how the proposal would provide information for and tie into further reform initiatives, and suggests some mechanics for funding and selecting proposals.

Introduction

I find the very-high level discussion of possible reform to be generally unhelpful. At that level, it's too easy for proponents to gloss over implementation costs and downsides, and too easy for skeptics to attack strawmen. There needs to be more substance for anyone to seriously evaluate most of the proposals that are floating around as possibilities -- either in the abstract or in terms of whether investing resources in a proposal specific to their organization makes sense.

I've also noted, as have others, that it's unreasonable to place the burden of producing more detailed proposals on reform advocates without either a strong reason to believe those reforms would be successful or providing reasonable compensation for their work. (Of course, no one should ever feel pressure to write even if compensation is offered!)

For what it's worth, I think some of the reform proposals going around are likely correct, some are worthwhile in carefully selected contexts, and some are very unlikely to be viable. But I also think, for many proposals, that my assessments could update significantly if I read more detailed versions of the proposal.

I'm a newcomer who has never accepted anything from any EA source other than one free book. This gives me certain advantages and limitations. I don't have to worry about damaging effects on my career, nor do I personally have anything to personally lose or gain from reform. On the other hand, my outsider status means I am probably ignorant of some important information. And it certainly means I have no right to make demands on anyone, only suggestions.

Background Assumptions

Most of the money in the ecosystem comes from Open Phil and a few other large donors. However, there is still a respectably-sized slice of independent funding from small to mid-size donors. I submit that certain functions within EA are in particular need of a diversified funding base, rather than one that is dependent on Open Phil or other megadonors. In particular, the development of proposals about power, governance, and transparency is one of those functions. Not only are people not particularly good at deciding whether they need to give up power or expose their decisions to transparency, they also have an obvious conflict of interest on the question. One can doubtless think of other functions for which independence from major funders is important or even critical.

For various reasons, I identify with a desire for moderate reform at this time. I'll define that (imprecisely) as a set of reforms that seeks to make EA a better version of itself, but still clearly identifiab...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Moving Toward More Concrete Proposals for Reform, published by Jason on January 27, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum.

Epistemic status: uncertain, unsure of the extent that I mean this as a practical proposal vs. a thought experiment to make certain observations, aware I could improve this but also aware that it should be timely

Timing note: Most of this was written before Doing EA Better was released, and is largely based on public events on the Forum. It is not specifically in response to that post, and is not really about possible epistemic reforms at all.

Summary

This post suggests that discussions of possible reforms relating to governance, deconcentration of power, and transparency have often been relatively unhelpful due to a lack of specificity. It suggests raising modest funding for the creation of more developed proposals, with the broader EA community taking the lead on the project. The post presents various reasons I think this proposal has value even if one assumes the underlying reform proposals lack merit. It explains how the proposal would provide information for and tie into further reform initiatives, and suggests some mechanics for funding and selecting proposals.

Introduction

I find the very-high level discussion of possible reform to be generally unhelpful. At that level, it's too easy for proponents to gloss over implementation costs and downsides, and too easy for skeptics to attack strawmen. There needs to be more substance for anyone to seriously evaluate most of the proposals that are floating around as possibilities -- either in the abstract or in terms of whether investing resources in a proposal specific to their organization makes sense.

I've also noted, as have others, that it's unreasonable to place the burden of producing more detailed proposals on reform advocates without either a strong reason to believe those reforms would be successful or providing reasonable compensation for their work. (Of course, no one should ever feel pressure to write even if compensation is offered!)

For what it's worth, I think some of the reform proposals going around are likely correct, some are worthwhile in carefully selected contexts, and some are very unlikely to be viable. But I also think, for many proposals, that my assessments could update significantly if I read more detailed versions of the proposal.

I'm a newcomer who has never accepted anything from any EA source other than one free book. This gives me certain advantages and limitations. I don't have to worry about damaging effects on my career, nor do I personally have anything to personally lose or gain from reform. On the other hand, my outsider status means I am probably ignorant of some important information. And it certainly means I have no right to make demands on anyone, only suggestions.

Background Assumptions

Most of the money in the ecosystem comes from Open Phil and a few other large donors. However, there is still a respectably-sized slice of independent funding from small to mid-size donors. I submit that certain functions within EA are in particular need of a diversified funding base, rather than one that is dependent on Open Phil or other megadonors. In particular, the development of proposals about power, governance, and transparency is one of those functions. Not only are people not particularly good at deciding whether they need to give up power or expose their decisions to transparency, they also have an obvious conflict of interest on the question. One can doubtless think of other functions for which independence from major funders is important or even critical.

For various reasons, I identify with a desire for moderate reform at this time. I'll define that (imprecisely) as a set of reforms that seeks to make EA a better version of itself, but still clearly identifiab...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: How to Reform Effective Altruism after SBF Vox interview with Holden Karnofsky 1/23/2023, published by Peter on January 26, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum.

Interview with Holden Karnofsky on SBF and EA. If you prefer listening, x2 speed is available here. Not anything really new but I really resonate with the last 5 minutes and the idea of being ambitious about helping people tempered by moderation and pluralism in perspectives. Parts not in the transcript that I liked: "You don't have to build your whole identity around EA in order to do an enormous amount of good, in order to be extremely excited about effective altruist ideas. If you can be basically a normal person in most respects, you have a lot going on in your life, you have a lot that you care about, and a job, and you work about as hard as a lot of people work at their jobs... you can do a huge amount of good.""Do the most good possible I think is a good idea in moderation. But it's similar to running. Faster time is better, but you can do that in moderation. You can care about other things at the same time.

I think there is a ton of value to coming at doing good with a mindset of finding out the way to do the most good with the resources I have. I think that brings a ton of value compared to just trying to do some good. But then, doing that in moderation I think does get you most of the gains, and ultimately where I think the most healthy place to be is, and probably in my guess the way to do the most good in the end too."Parts from transcript I liked:"...What effective altruism means to me is basically, let’s be ambitious about helping a lot of people. . I feel like this is good, so I think I’m more in the camp of, this is a good idea in moderation. This is a good idea when accompanied by pluralism.""Longtermism tends to emphasize the importance of future generations. But there’s a separate idea of just, like, global catastrophic risk reduction. There’s some risks facing humanity that are really big and that we’ve got to be paying more attention to. One of them is climate change.

One of them is pandemics. And then there’s AI. I think the dangers of certain kinds of AI that you could easily imagine being developed are vastly underappreciated.So I would say that I’m currently more sold on bio risk and AI risk as just things that we’ve got to be paying more attention to, no matter what your philosophical orientation. I’m more sold on that than I am on longtermism.

But I am somewhat sold on both. I’ve always kind of thought, “Hey, future people are people and we should care about what happens in the future.” But I’ve always been skeptical of claims to go further than that and say something like, “The value of future generations, and in particular the value of as many people as possible getting to exist, is so vast that it just completely trumps everything else, and you shouldn’t even think about other ways to help people.” That’s a claim that I’ve never really been on board with, and I’m still not on board with.""

Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: How to Reform Effective Altruism after SBF Vox interview with Holden Karnofsky 1/23/2023, published by Peter on January 26, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum.

Interview with Holden Karnofsky on SBF and EA. If you prefer listening, x2 speed is available here. Not anything really new but I really resonate with the last 5 minutes and the idea of being ambitious about helping people tempered by moderation and pluralism in perspectives. Parts not in the transcript that I liked: "You don't have to build your whole identity around EA in order to do an enormous amount of good, in order to be extremely excited about effective altruist ideas. If you can be basically a normal person in most respects, you have a lot going on in your life, you have a lot that you care about, and a job, and you work about as hard as a lot of people work at their jobs... you can do a huge amount of good.""Do the most good possible I think is a good idea in moderation. But it's similar to running. Faster time is better, but you can do that in moderation. You can care about other things at the same time.

I think there is a ton of value to coming at doing good with a mindset of finding out the way to do the most good with the resources I have. I think that brings a ton of value compared to just trying to do some good. But then, doing that in moderation I think does get you most of the gains, and ultimately where I think the most healthy place to be is, and probably in my guess the way to do the most good in the end too."Parts from transcript I liked:"...What effective altruism means to me is basically, let’s be ambitious about helping a lot of people. . I feel like this is good, so I think I’m more in the camp of, this is a good idea in moderation. This is a good idea when accompanied by pluralism.""Longtermism tends to emphasize the importance of future generations. But there’s a separate idea of just, like, global catastrophic risk reduction. There’s some risks facing humanity that are really big and that we’ve got to be paying more attention to. One of them is climate change.

One of them is pandemics. And then there’s AI. I think the dangers of certain kinds of AI that you could easily imagine being developed are vastly underappreciated.So I would say that I’m currently more sold on bio risk and AI risk as just things that we’ve got to be paying more attention to, no matter what your philosophical orientation. I’m more sold on that than I am on longtermism.

But I am somewhat sold on both. I’ve always kind of thought, “Hey, future people are people and we should care about what happens in the future.” But I’ve always been skeptical of claims to go further than that and say something like, “The value of future generations, and in particular the value of as many people as possible getting to exist, is so vast that it just completely trumps everything else, and you shouldn’t even think about other ways to help people.” That’s a claim that I’ve never really been on board with, and I’m still not on board with.""

Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Basics of Rationalist Discourse, published by Duncan Sabien on January 27, 2023 on LessWrong.

Introduction

This post is meant to be a linkable resource. It contains a short list of guidelines that are intended to be fairly straightforward and uncontroversial, for the purpose of nurturing and strengthening a culture of clear thinking, clear communication, and collaborative truth-seeking.

"Alas," said Dumbledore, "we all know that what should be, and what is, are two different things. Thank you for keeping this in mind."

There is also (for those who want to read past the simple list) substantial expansion/clarification of each specific guideline, along with justification for the overall philosophy behind the set.

Prelude: On Shorthand

Once someone has a deep, rich understanding of a complex topic, they are often able to refer to that topic with short, simple sentences that correctly convey the intended meaning to other people with similar context and expertise.

However, those same short, simple sentences are often dangerously misleading, in the hands of a novice who lacks the proper background. Dangerous precisely because they seem straightforward and comprehensible, and thus the novice will confidently extrapolate outward from them in what feel like perfectly reasonable ways, unaware the whole time that the concept in their head bears little or no resemblance to the concept that lives in the expert's head.

Good shorthand in the hands of an experienced user need only be an accurate fit for the already-existing concept it refers to—it doesn't need the additional property of being an unmistakeable non-fit for other nearby attractors. It doesn't need to contain complexity or nuance—it just needs to remind the listener of the complexity already contained in their mental model. It's doing its job if it efficiently evokes the understanding that already exists, independent of itself.

This is important, because what follows this introduction is a list of short, simple sentences comprising the basics of rationalist discourse. Each of those sentences is a solid fit for the more-complicated concept it's gesturing at, provided you already understand that concept. The short sentences are mnemonics, reminders, hyperlinks.

They are not sufficient, on their own, to reliably cause a beginner to construct the proper concepts from the ground up, and they do not, by themselves, rule out all likely misunderstandings.

All things considered, it seems good to have a clear, concise list near the top of a post like this. People should not have to scroll and scroll and sift through thousands of words when trying to refer back to these guidelines.

But each of the short, simple sentences below admits of multiple interpretations, some of which are intended and others of which are not. They are compressions of complex points, and compressions are inevitably lossy. If a given guideline is new to you, check the in-depth explanation before reposing confidence in your understanding. And if a given guideline stated-in-brief seems to you to be flawed or misguided in some obvious way, check the expansion before spending a bunch of time marshaling objections that may well have already been answered.

Further musing on this concept: Sazen

Guidelines, in brief:

0. Expect good discourse to require energy.

Don't say straightforwardly false things.

Track (for yourself) and distinguish (for others) your inferences from your observations.

Estimate (for yourself) and make clear (for others) your rough level of confidence in your assertions.

Make your claims clear, explicit, and falsifiable, or explicitly acknowledge that you aren't doing so (or can't).

Aim for convergence on truth, and behave as if your interlocutors are also aiming for convergence on truth.

Don't jump to conclusions—maintain at least two hypotheses...