Let's split into groups!

[Hendy]

Per jsalvatier's suggestion of google groups... here we are. I'm not
sure exactly how to do this best with a discussion topic, but her's my
shot at requesting more info to help.

In your posts, please add the following information (or suggest if
I've asked the wrong questions):
-----
- "Level"
--- consider yourself advanced and primarily just want to talk to
other advanced members?
--- consider yourself advanced and would be a "guidance-provider" for
a more beginnerish group?
--- consider yourself to be a beginner and really want to talk to an
advanced member?
--- consider yourself to be a beginner and would primarily like to
talk to other beginners?

- Time: most are good on weekends
--- please object to the decision that all groups will meet on a
weekend afternoon/eve
--- I think we can hold off on specific dates/times until we're in
groups

- People per groups
--- Do you object to groups of 3? Should it be more?
--- I think 3-5 is good, but said three because I worry about internet/
bandwidth issues
--- I think we've actually got 8, so maybe two groups of 4

- Clarifications to your discussion topic preference
-----


,-----
| To not duplicate efforts, I've summarized your timezone (and time
preference)
| and what you said you'd be interested in talking about below.
`-----
- jwhendy
--- Timezone: central
--- Discussion preference: pretty open; working through Map &
Territory, so super beginner wrt sequences, but would definitely enjoy
listening to others talk about instrumental rationality

- Armok_GoB
--- Timezone: European timezone
--- Discussion preference: Would prefer the group of the highest level

- erratio:
--- Timezone: in Sydney, but central works great
--- Discussion preference: ?

- virtualAdept
--- Timezone: late evenings EST or "afternoon+" on weekends
--- Discussion preference: sequences or instrumental rationality

- folkTheory:
--- Timezone: ?
--- Discussion preference: ?

- zaph
--- Timezone: ?
--- Discussion preference: ?

- SilasBarta:
--- Timzone: central
--- Discussion preference: sequences (perhaps to help others) and
instrumental rationality

- Dorrika:
--- Weekday eve's, T/W/Th work, but afternoon/even on weekends are
best
--- Discussion preference: instrumental rationality

- jsalvatier: not sure if interested or if just wanted to suggest
getting a google group for organizing; we'll see if he shows up

[Dorikka]

Can you give an example of what you mean by 'advanced?' I've read many
of the Sequences, but don't know how my grasp of them compares to that
of others. I agree with groups of 4.

[Hendy]

Not positive myself. Perhaps, if someone were newer to the idea of
rationality and LessWrong, would you be in an "in the same boat"
situation or perhaps more of a tutor? Even that doesn't seem write
when I re-read it, as someone "new" might be incredibly rational but
just not have knowledge of the literal text of the sequences.

Maybe I should just can that question and divide up by times and just
let things go from there.

Do you think that would be easier than worrying about skill-level-
matching?

[Dorikka]

I think that dividing on times would be best, except if someone had a
preference that they explicitly didn't want to end up with beginners.
To answer your previous question, I definitely don't feel new to
LessWrong, but I'm unsure of my tutoring abilities.

[Hendy]

On Apr 8, 11:59 am, Dorikka <na0...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I think that dividing on times would be best, except if someone had a
> preference that they explicitly didn't want to end up with beginners.
> To answer your previous question, I definitely don't feel new to
> LessWrong, but I'm unsure of my tutoring abilities.

Fair enough. And since everyone liked weekends anyway, I'm just going
to do this randomly and then create two new discussions for the
resultant groups; from there, members of each group can solidify a
time. I'm using python random.randomint(0,1) and just going down the
list as I have it; 0=A, 1=B:

- jwhendy: A
- Armok_GoB: B
- erratio: B
- virtualAdept: B
- folkTheory: B
- zaph: B
- SilasBarta: A, by default to make a group of 4
- Dorrika: A, by default to make a group of 4

- jsalvatier, if he shows, is a B

Check discussions for two new areas to solidify date/time/topic for
your group.

[Hendy]

Sorry, goofed when transcribing between 0/1 and A/B; Armok_GoB is an
*A*. Revised/correct:

- jwhendy: A
- Armok_GoB: A

[Rasmus Eide]

Wait, weren't we supposed to group by timezone? Like, one European and
one American group I think, unless someone is out of those timezones.

I think that in this context I'd probably be classified as an advanced
rationalist, but I'm not all that good at explaining things so my
tutoring usefulness might be limited.

2011/4/8 Hendy <jw.h...@gmail.com>:

[Hendy]

@amrok:

Replied in Group A as well. No one else said they were in Europe thus
far; though there are some who haven't responded. Let's try to find a
time that will work (earlier for us so you're not in bed) and if any
more Europeans show up we can rearrange.

On Apr 8, 2:21 pm, Rasmus Eide <armok...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wait, weren't we supposed to group by timezone? Like, one European and
> one American group I think, unless someone is out of those timezones.
>
> I think that in this context I'd probably be classified as an advanced
> rationalist, but I'm not all that good at explaining things so my
> tutoring usefulness might be limited.
>

> 2011/4/8 Hendy <jw.he...@gmail.com>: