michael-dean-k/

A summary is maybe 1% of the original, but notably it loses all of the source—this is what defines the flat blurb, the just-in-time factoid. A functional interpretation.

A compression is different in that it can only draw from the source. I’m finding that 40-70% compressions reduce length but increase information density.

What would a 1% compression look like? In a 10,000 word essay, which 100 words might contain the smallest fractal of the whole, both in terms of substance and style? This doesn’t amount to selecting your favorite paragraph, but finding your favorite 5-10 sentences from across a piece, and stitching them together, so that the kernel of the idea, the thing that’s likely to remain after the brutal compression of memory, is right there in front of you.

For every essay I read, what if I required myself to make that 1% compression? What if I returned to that list often, quickly refreshing the way a piece moved me. Would I actually remember them over time? Would I actually enact those lessons and change my life?

I wonder if there’s both an expansion and compression arc that’s required to fully get something: XS>S>M>L>XL>L>M>S>XS. You start small to even build intrigue to enter a text (ie: a recommendation from a friend); maybe you read smaller compressions, and gradually build up to the XL full version, with all the footnotes, annotations, and liner notes. But then there’s an equally necessary process of unwinding, of distilling and compressing what you uniquely take away from something—perhaps an aphorism; a souvenir on your shelf that is lodging into your working memory each morning.

Surprised to learn that John Olerud has one of the highest all-time OPS (on-base plus slugging percentages) in New York Mets history. He wasn't necessarily a power hitter, but for over a decade (1992-2003), he had more walks than strikeouts each season. He also set the NYM record for walks in a season: 125 walks in 1999. His skill was discernment, knowing when not to swing.

People assume that the rationalists in the LessWrong forums are logic worshippers that only think in Bayesian statistics. I'm sure many of them do. But actually, their genesis book Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality, by Yudkowsky, is a cautionary tale about the extremes of rationalism. Yes, Harry is able to run circles around wizards with his command of statistics, but Voldermort is an evil master logician, symbolizing the danger of deploying rationalism without morals. So in the end, it’s more like a philosophy of “meta-rationalism,” on the discernment to know when the mode of rationality makes sense. Still though, I imagine that nuance is lost on many in and out of the community..

Sometimes an innocent insight or daydream can mutate into something insanely twisted. It’s shocking at first, but I have the self-awareness to not believe in anything that crosses my mind. I imagine some people don’t have this ability. They might get scared by their own thoughts, thinking they’re a monster. I wonder if an evil person is simply someone who comes to blindly trust all their thoughts.

Traits have finer nuances. Someone can’t just be “high in openness.” There’s a massive range in contexts, and they might be incredibly open in some (abstract thinking) and quite reserved in others (parties with strangers). I do think that openness in general breeds the conditions for someone to suggest: why can’t I be open in this context too? It’s equally critical to ask: where should I not be open? (If you’re completely open, your mind falls out.)

I need to write out a post on why movies are culturally/psychologically better than shows, and how you should be extremely careful about the shows you welcome into your life. Unlike movies, shows focus on small dramas between characters, and are unresolved episode to episode—they have a constant pull on your attention, and are too uneventful to stay in your memory.

The word “diary” implies a space of personal recollection and non-judgment. There is no right or wrong. It has one job, it’s a mirror. Now Rubin says:

“Everything we make can be [a diary], a personal reflection of who we are, in that moment of time. It doesn’t have to be the greatest you can ever do. It doesn’t have to have any expectation that it can change the world. It doesn’t have to sell a certain number of copies for any reason. It doesn’t have any of things. All it has is: I’m making this thing for me, and I want to do it to the best of my ability, to where I feel good about it, and it’s honest, honest of where I’m at.”

Is editing dishonest?

I resonate the idea with purging the chorus of false reasons (greatness, impact, sales) … but if you want to do something “to the best of your ability,” does that not imply the recursive act of looking at your work and judging it? I actually think self-criticism is one of the hardest and most honest things you can do.

Judgment is a profound force. It shouldn’t be your primary lens to reality, but it is an indispensable razor into the truth, and it’s something we ought to be grateful for: our whole society is built on it.

Perspective is opinion with explainability.