Monthly Discussion Thread

[u/AutoModerator]

This thread is intended to fill a function similar to that of the Open Threads on SSC proper: a collection of discussion topics, links, and questions too small to merit their own threads. While it is intended for a wide range of conversation, please follow the community guidelines. In particular, avoid culture war–adjacent topics.

[u/Glittering_Will_5172]

Zizians and rationalists are mentioned in this podcast here. https://youtu.be/2nA2qyOtU7M?t=554

He says Sam Altman and Elon Musk were early posters on Lesswrong and SSC. I'm pretty sure this is wrong, does anyone have any evidence of this?

[u/Liface]

I just turned off reddit's "Achievements" for /r/slatestarcodex, so hopefully no one has to deal with notification spam anymore for reddit's silly gamification.

[u/Kintpuash-of-Kush]

Might be a bit selfish and/or embarrassing to use this space for travel advice, but I would trust this sub's takes more than most, so here goes:

I am planning on traveling to Europe for the first time in late May, and am equal measures excited and nervous. Do any of you who are experienced travelers have recommendations for what to prioritize visiting or experiencing in Central/Eastern Europe, or while traveling internationally in general?

Along with visiting Krakow and Lviv, I have heard a lot of great things about Budapest, Vienna, Prague, Warsaw, but also somewhat less visited cities and regions like Bratislava, Wroclaw, Bucharest, Kosice, Maramures, the Low Tatras, etc. - and worry that while each place has its own unique history and flavor, there is a lot of redundancy between cities (or differences so subtle no traveler will be able to meaningfully appreciate over the course of a few days or even a few weeks).

I know I can't visit all these places, but want to get a taste of cities, cultures, and natural environments which are maximally different from each other, and from the rest of the Earth (along with maybe a few "must sees" for travelers). Basically, stuff that one can't just read about and get the gist of!

[u/Winter_Essay3971 → u/Kintpuash-of-Kush]

Spend at least some of your time in smaller cities.

I went to Eastern Europe at the end of 2022 for a couple weeks -- it was a spur of the moment thing, had just gotten laid off and had the time to go. A week of that time was in Hungary. Honestly Budapest doesn't stick out in my memory that much -- Székesfehérvar and Győr were much more interesting and felt like I was seeing the real Hungary, not only historic stuff but the modern working-class culture.

But while you're in the bigger cities, it's nice to spend a few days just wandering around, taking the metro, not cramming in as much as possible.

As for a few specific attractions I recommend:

• House of Terror Museum in Budapest. Amusing look at the Communist period that is itself obviously drenched in anti-leftist propaganda.
• Harry Houdini Museum in Budapest. Short tour is given in English. Getting there takes you through the Budavári palota area (castle the city was built around)
• Petřín, a large hill/small mountain in the middle of Prague, has a funicular to take you to the top, and a ~200' tower you can climb once you get there.
• Cathedral of St. Peter and Paul, Brno, Czechia. Beautiful on its own but you can also climb to the top for a great view of the city.

[u/ActionLegitimate4354]

After reading his last post on trade, my issue with Yarvin is that he seems to be the apotheosis of wordcelism.

He just doesn't know what he is talking about, he has never opened an excel with trade data, I doubt he even knows how half of the measures he talks about are calculated in practice.

His whole thing is pure rhetorical plays to make "reasonable arguments" and crazy strong assertions that in any other field would require hundreds of pages of evidence to make. But he doesn't do that, it's just pop culture references and random references to philosophy or religion. And sounding extremely self assured about stuff that people that have dedicated their whole lives to study are ambivalent about, but somehow he has reached the ultimate truth after thinking about the topic for a couple days last week.

It's honestly pretty embarrassing that people take this stuff seriously, and it makes me think less of people when they try to convince me that this stuff is worth something

[u/dnkndnts → u/ActionLegitimate4354]

You didn’t even mention the worst part: his writing is long and boring.

I hate all the false advertising he gets as a risqué bad boy, when it’s more like reading the transcription of a ranting nursing home patient.

[u/redditiscucked4ever]

I am wondering about something and this is probably the least weird place I can ask this, so:

Is there a way to artificially generate interest in some specific subject? Let's say I am interested in studying Latin paleography. Is there a way to make this interesting and/or addicting?

I've noticed that while I am a very curious individual, a few things instinctively spark my interest, making learning and studying about them a pleasurable experience.

I guess I am asking if I can generate interest in studying Latin Paleography. Like, I want to want this. Is this just futile? I'd do this for some possibly good work-related opportunities I can make in the future, and also because I like some girl who studies this stuff.

Sorry if this sounds weird but I am more interested in the formalized question about artificially generating interest. I've noticed that if I can just get that part of the puzzle right, studying pretty much everything becomes a breeze.

[u/Sol_Hando → u/redditiscucked4ever]

Nicotine helped me to develop a reading habit.

I bought a few hundred nicotine lozenges off Amazon and would only take them while reading. Eventually I ran out, and while the urge to read isn’t as strong as when it was coupled with the urge for nicotine, it helped me easily get over the initial stage of habit formation that is also the hardest. Now I can coast on the developed habit to read.

The health effects are negligible (or even slightly positive, 99% of research has to do with smoking or vaping which is harmful for other reasons), and I didn’t feel any noticeable withdrawal effects after stopping. I imagine it doesn’t absorb as easily through a pill as it would in your lungs.

[u/callmejay → u/redditiscucked4ever]

I am very interested in artificially generating interest!

Just spitballing:

• I assume this field is pretty small, but try to find an author or speaker or content creator who is really engaging. Maybe there's an online lecture somewhere?
• Find somebody online who is wrong about it and learn enough to really show them up.
• Commit yourself somehow to giving a talk on the subject on a certain date. Or start writing an essay/effortpost about it yourself.
• Have long conversations with an LLM or even ask the LLM to make it interesting for you. Maybe find some texts to give it to teach you.

[u/redditiscucked4ever → u/callmejay]

The idea about writing some effort posts seems extremely interesting, I’ll at least try that one out.

Thanks!

[u/Winter_Essay3971 → u/redditiscucked4ever]

I successfully did this starting in 2019 to generate an interest in history. I always thought history was lame and boring in high school and barely managed B's -- now I read history books regularly for fun.

TL;DR: I was in a new city for work, didn't know anyone, only had weird/niche interests like linguistics and conlanging, and wanted a more "normal" interest to connect with smart people over.

I'm tired so this isn't gonna be well organized, but a few things that helped:

• made Anki decks for a few regions of the world (History of China, History of Russia/the USSR, etc.) and fleshed them out with a few hundred cards each, just random facts from Wikipedia that seemed important
• went to the library sometimes and picked out a book about the history of a country I knew almost nothing about (Fiji and Cuba were a couple early ones). Put any interesting/key facts into the appropriate Anki decks
• I'm someone who responds well to gamification, so goals like "add 400 history Anki cards this month" worked for me
• this Anki stuff helped build up a foundation of basic knowledge so that any additional facts I encountered would "stick" more easily because I would have some context
• focus on the aspects that interest me. In my case I'm into cities/urbanism, so learning about the major cities in the krais and oblasts across Siberia has made me more curious about the culture of those regions, their major ethnic groups, etc.
• listen to podcasts while I go about my day (while running, walking at night, driving, cooking, etc). May be irrelevant for a niche subject like Latin paleography -- but the general point is, reducing the friction of information intake helps build up that foundation

Also if there is any local social anything catering to the subject then go to that I guess.

[u/callmejay → u/Winter_Essay3971]

I'm tired so this isn't gonna be well organized, but a few things that helped:

• made Anki decks for a few regions of the world (History of China, History of Russia/the USSR, etc.) and fleshed them out with a few hundred cards each, just random facts from Wikipedia that seemed important
• went to the library sometimes and picked out a book about the history of a country I knew almost nothing about (Fiji and Cuba were a couple early ones). Put any interesting/key facts into the appropriate Anki decks
• I'm someone who responds well to gamification, so goals like "add 400 history Anki cards this month" worked for me
• this Anki stuff helped build up a foundation of basic knowledge so that any additional facts I encountered would "stick" more easily because I would have some context
• focus on the aspects that interest me. In my case I'm into cities/urbanism, so learning about the major cities in the krais and oblasts across Siberia has made me more curious about the culture of those regions, their major ethnic groups, etc.
• listen to podcasts while I go about my day (while running, walking at night, driving, cooking, etc). May be irrelevant for a niche subject like Latin paleography -- but the general point is, reducing the friction of information intake helps build up that foundation

[u/redditiscucked4ever → u/Winter_Essay3971]

Thanks, the idea of gamifying Latin paleography didn't come to my mind. I'll try Latin since it's handy for language learning and then see if it's appropriate for that too.

[u/ExtropianX]

How do you feel about the idea of 2 year university degrees?

In Europe most Bachelor's last 3 years, with typically 18-22 modules required.

I don't see how it can't get down to 2 years with 16 modules (so 4 per semester), especially if the degree examiners-awarders are independent international institutions and you are free to choose the professor for each module (so better incentive mechanisms for the universities too). 

In other words, it'd require universities to give out their signaling) power to 3-4 large independent institutions, so situations like "donate a few millions to get accepted to Yale through the back door", or "pay that mediocre professor's salary because you can't choose a competent one from another Uni" go out of the window.

With the way AI is moving and universities' tuition costs being so high, it seems like a viable solution.

[u/callmejay → u/ExtropianX]

There's too much to unpack here. What problem are you trying to solve? Obviously, the financial burden has become unwieldy to say the least, but we used to have four-year degrees that you could almost cover with summer jobs. If we are trying to simply reduce costs, is this the best we can do?

At first blush, the obvious problem is that you are reducing university degrees to being able to pass (or excel at) exams and assignments. If so, why 2 years? Why modules? Why not just let people learn however they want to and take the exams and do the assignments as fast as they are able to?

This is a perfect example of Goodhart's Law.

Isn't education supposed to bring about a whole host of beneficial developments other than simply learning the material well enough to do well on tests and exams? Done right, it allows for a development of the intellect and a broadening of the mind that can't easily be tested for and many students would really miss out on that extra time spent with professors and other students going through the processes.

There's also the social development that can happen. Spending 4 years getting to know people with different backgrounds, forming bonds that can last a lifetime, developing interpersonal skills, broadening their worldviews, trying on different identities, joining groups, etc.

Obviously I'm describing something of an idealized college experience, but isn't that really what the elite schools are selling? People want to go to Harvard and Yale for the experience, not just the credential or the network.

[u/electrace → u/callmejay]

Why not just let people learn however they want to and take the exams and do the assignments as fast as they are able to?

Acutaries almost get to do this, insofar as the thing that actually matters is passing actuarial tests, not getting your degree. An actuary student who doesn't pass the actual (non university) actuarial tests is not going to be employed as an actuary.

Unfortunately, many of these tests require that you complete a number of hours of actuary classes in order to sit for the test, which seems absurd to me.

Isn't education supposed to bring about a whole host of beneficial developments other than simply learning the material well enough to do well on tests and exams?

That's the sales pitch, but my view is that, rather than providing that, you get a hodgepodge of nonsensical electives that do not serve to change your worldview (architecture studies? french?), and merely fills out the credits you need.

"We're providing benefits that you can't possibly test for" should be viewed with great skepticism.

People want to go to Harvard and Yale for the experience, not just the credential or the network.

I wager most people care far more about the credential than the experience, and the ones who crave "the college experience" in my experience end up living well above their means and have to pay it back in excessively large student loans.

[u/ExtropianX → u/callmejay]

If we are trying to simply reduce costs, is this the best we can do?

Trying to reduce costs and improve universities' produced services. If you have any alternative suggestions, I'm all ears.

Why modules? 

AFAIK that's the way you earn your degree in Europe, you have to pass a certain amount of core and optional modules.

Why not just let people learn however they want to and take the exams and do the assignments as fast as they are able to?

In many ways that's the plan, with less modules. For example if 16 modules are enough to earn a degree, are 4 years really needed?

Isn't education supposed to bring about a whole host of beneficial developments other than simply learning the material well enough to do well on tests and exams? Done right, it allows for a development of the intellect and a broadening of the mind that can't easily be tested for and many students would really miss out on that extra time spent with professors and other students going through the processes.

How are we supposed to measure the quality of education (1), the broadening of the mind (2) and the development of the intellect (3) though? We don't have an independent metric through which we can evaluate what students have learnt and neither for the other 2. The independent institutions which would provide the exams and award the degrees would reveal if students learn and how well, since the professor of each University wouldn't create the exam questions. Maybe IQ / pattern recognition tests for (2) and (3) at the start and at the end of the undergraduate studies could be useful.

There's also the social development that can happen. Spending 4 years getting to know people with different backgrounds, forming bonds that can last a lifetime, developing interpersonal skills, broadening their worldviews, trying on different identities, joining groups, etc.

That happens in the workplace too. Don't forget, with the system that I'm proposing those 4 years you're referring to are 2 years less getting to know people with different backgrounds, forming bonds that can last a lifetime, developing interpersonal skills, broadening their worldviews, trying on different identities, joining groups, etc. in the workplace. 

At least in the workplace you gain wealth, not lose, plus I haven't seen any real difference of 3 year Bachelor's degrees' graduates in any way (productivity, skills, critical thinking, openness to new ideas) from Western Europe. I don't understand how going from 3 years to 2 will in any way harm any of those qualities especially if we can monitor the level of knowledge gained through those independent institutions.

Obviously I'm describing something of an idealized college experience, but isn't that really what the elite schools are selling? People want to go to Harvard and Yale for the experience, not just the credential or the network.

Some yes, but in reality the value in these cases comes from the signalling they offer. Ask the typical HS applicant if they would rather spend 4 years getting the Yale education/experience without the degree (a) or 4 years without the education/experience but with the degree (b). Most would pick (b).

If there are 3-4 international institutions running the exams and awarding the degrees, that signalling power of the universities goes away, creating a clearer incentive structure.

[u/Winter_Essay3971 → u/ExtropianX]

I guess the question is: who would benefit from this system? Students probably would (although if education becomes more accessible to all, one first-order effect is that jobs requiring degrees become even more competitive and salaries go down further), but universities would prefer our current system. Universities' influence in the US government has likely declined a bit, but college-educated young people with student debt are not a particularly popular interest group right now.

[u/Winter_Essay3971]

What are this sub's thoughts on "how long should you stick with therapy"?

Saw someone from BetterHelp for a couple months; crap experience, felt like talking to an LLM. Now I've been seeing an independent therapist about some long-term personal issues and mild depression for about 4 months now. Not noticing myself feeling any better. I have been working through some suggestions with them (going to support groups etc) but it hasn't had much effect.

Other considerations:

• It's 1 hour of my time per week, which requires me to make arrangements to be in a quiet and private place with reliable Wi-Fi, not make other social plans that night of the week, etc.
• Most of my sessions consist of telling the therapist "Well I did this and it didn't work for [reasons], my emotional state is still bad" and "I can see how I wish my mind worked -- be self-accepting and emotionally stable -- but I can't get there without high doses of psychedelics"
• I am paying $65/wk, which I am aware is a good deal but that's money I could be investing. (I'm 30 and pretty behind on saving for retirement, due to spending much of my career underemployed and also some time unemployed. I'm also not in a position to find a higher-paying job, and I don't want to work at Home Depot on the weekends just to save for retirement)
• The days when I do feel good, it's because of things totally unrelated to my therapy goals like socializing or going on a road trip

But maybe the returns on therapy are usually long-term, and I would be shooting myself in the foot by ending it now?

[u/watermeloncholera → u/Winter_Essay3971]

I think these videos are an excellent reference/introduction for what good psychotherapy looks like. There is suffering that we can change and suffering that we cannot change. Much of the suffering that can be changed is rooted in how we exist as human subjects and how we relate to others. These are things that psychotherapy can change. Perhaps most important in therapy is being able to openly explore your feelings about the therapist and about the therapy in general. For example, how you are framing the therapy in terms of "being an inconvenience that takes up time," "look at how much I'm spending," "this whole thing might be useless," and "this is taking longer than I expected" are all probably reflective of the deeper issues which cause your depression and personal issues.

Therapy does take a long time, and it's also important that you work with a therapist who you click with (at least well enough--there is no perfect fit--and in any meaningful psychotherapy there will be times when you hate them and want to quit). They should also encourage curiosity about all aspects of yourself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNWy1ksxIDo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2Iin4f0sgI

[u/callmejay → u/Winter_Essay3971]

I'd say my life got much better because of therapy, but most of the therapists I've seen did not help. Finding the right therapist for you is probably the most important thing.

In an ideal world where therapists were plentiful and affordable, finding a therapist should probably be more like dating where you meet a bunch of people, go on a lot of "first dates" with a few of them, go on a second date with just a couple, start a relationship when you think you've found the right one, and then "settle down" (if still necessary, this is where the analogy kind of breaks down) when you're sure.

In the actual world where you probably have limited options you can access, I recommend being efficient by being very assertive in pushing back on modalities and suggestions that you don't not find beneficial. It would be 100% appropriate for you to go into your next session and say, look, it's been four months, I'm seeing no improvement and this costs a lot of money, what do you think we should do here? If they can't give you a convincing answer of why you should stick around, you should probably find another one.

(One complication of course is that some people will probably avoid exactly the therapists that they do need, but you'd probably have at least some gut feeling that you're doing that. I assume? But I'm not a therapist!)

[u/Atersed → u/Winter_Essay3971]

I was depressed for years and I tried various therapists, and I stuck with it for long time even though I didn't feel like it was beneficial, because I felt I had no other options. Now in hindsight, I think the whole thing was a waste of time and money.

Probably if you don't "fit" with someone after one or two sessions then the relationship won't be useful. Maybe there are amazing therapists out there, but this suggests a strategy similar to dating, where you try lots for a short amount of time and expect most of them to suck.

Personally my life got better when I got a job that I was happy with, in a sector I always wanted to work in. Again in hindsight, the best "therapy" for me would have been career coaching and mentorship.

If you feel happy after certain things, like socializing or road trips, that is really good. Take note of that and try to do that more often.

Scott has a medical blog that might be helpful https://lorienpsych.com/2021/06/05/depression/

[u/GerryAdamsSFOfficial → u/Winter_Essay3971]

This will be controversial, but in my opinion, it's rarely worth it at all.

Your wellbeing is not an enigma. Do what feels good and avoid what doesn't.

Swap depression for a fever. If you had a fever, would your impulse be to talk about having a fever or to treat the source issue?

I used to have severe serious suicidal depression. Because my life was terrible. Once I stopped living such an unbearably terrible life I no longer have any symptoms whatsoever.

CBT consists of arguing with your own thoughts. It's a waste of time.

Get a new job. Move. Make sweeping, enormous radical changes. Pick the top 5 sources of your misery and solve them. It's hard, but oh my God, it's worth it.

[u/slothtrop6 → u/GerryAdamsSFOfficial]

CBT consists of arguing with your own thoughts. It's a waste of time.

It's generally effective according to research. Keeping a realistic perspective is not a waste of time (of course, it's not stronger than enduring harsh realities). Mind you this comes in different flavors, and the CBT approach from the 80s should probably integrate some of the 3rd wave improvements.

Some people find that intrusive thoughts still happen after "correcting" them. That's normal. As long as you internalize that they are distortions, the next move is to just let them pass without judgement, and do something else.

Get a new job. Move. Make sweeping, enormous radical changes

I did this, and got worse. My episodes improved after self-administrating non-pharmaceutical interventions, which were not just limited to CBT but many things but definitely involved it.

[u/callmejay → u/GerryAdamsSFOfficial]

CBT consists of arguing with your own thoughts. It's a waste of time.

I found learning how to argue with my own thoughts enormously helpful.

Yours is kind of a weird take in a rationalist sub actually! But I know a lot of people feel that way about CBT.

[u/GerryAdamsSFOfficial → u/callmejay]

Rationalism is partially about using ones reason, but it's also about knowing when reason is not a useful approach.

If you set a man on fire, you put out the fire, not teach the man to argue with himself over whether or not maybe he secretly likes being burned alive.

[u/callmejay → u/GerryAdamsSFOfficial]

That's a bit of a straw man of cbt, don't you think?

[u/GerryAdamsSFOfficial → u/callmejay]

No, not really, to be honest. Therapy for 5 years. Turns out I needed a decent salary.

[u/Sol_Hando → u/Winter_Essay3971]

$65/week saved over 35 years, with 5% yearly compounding would leave you with $305,000 by retirement.

Social security currently pays ~$2,000/mo. That $65/week would allow you to spend an extra ~$1,000/mo from retiring at 65 well into your 90’s, and you’d probably be dead by then anyways. That’s a 50% increase in spending power if you weren’t saving otherwise (which seems to be the case for you), so a serious increase in quality of life.

There’s more to life than money, but having a fund you regularly contribute to that can be used for emergencies or retirement would definitely bring some sort of psychological benefit. At the very least you wouldn’t have to worry about working at Home Depot when retiring.

Alternatively you could do real world fulfilling things like going on a hike up a mountain over the weekend, which would probably cost less than $65, definitely improve your physical health, and likely improve your mental state too.

[u/electrace → u/Sol_Hando]

$65/week saved over 35 years, with 5% yearly compounding would leave you with $305,000 by retirement.

Social security currently pays ~$2,000/mo. That $65/week would allow you to spend an extra ~$1,000/mo

Doesn't detract much from the overall point, but, while you might have an extra $1000 a month,in 35 years, Social Security won't be paying out $2k a month. They'll be paying out ~$5k a month if inflation is the same as it is in the last 35 years, so that extra $1k isn't going to be a 1/3 extra income; it'll be 1/6th extra income, which is not as big a deal.

[u/Sol_Hando → u/electrace]

That's true, but you can get a ~7% average annual return from a broad investment portfolio rather than just 5%. That $65 is presumably a portion of your income, so if the dollar inflates 100%, your wages track that (with a delay), and your weekly contribution ends up $130/week. All-in-all, it's pretty much a wash when it comes to adjusting for inflation. Your final dollar amount will certainly be much higher than $300,000, but it will be approximately equivalent to $300,000 inflation adjusted for 2025.

You could come up with a more complicated model, but 5% annualized interest compounding for 35 years is a very simplified, but decently representative model for a long-term investment.

[u/Winter_Essay3971 → u/Sol_Hando]

(FWIW, I'm currently contributing around $300/wk to retirement, so it's not like I'm on track to be eating cat food at 65. But I also need to account for the possibility that I spend long chunks of time unemployed/unemployable in the future, or my real wages take a permanent hit due to AI/offshoring/etc. So anywhere I can cut costs right now is helpful)

[u/Sol_Hando → u/Winter_Essay3971]

That's a pretty good savings rate! The $65 would definitely not make a major difference then.

Personally I am skeptical of therapy, but it apparently helps people, so I don't want to criticize it from my limited experience. If I had to guess, doing something you know makes you happy, like socializing or going on a road trip would be way more effective, or trying to identify things in your life that are making you unhappy, which often can be changed. If you like hiking, that is even better IMO as it adds exercise to the list (which can only help), and basically every city has hiking groups (combining socializing), and you might travel to places to actually do the hiking (combining a road trip).

I bet someone like Scott is a great therapist to have, but having known multiple people who went on to become therapists, there are definitely many who I wouldn't want to be friends with, let alone pay to speak with.

[u/GerryAdamsSFOfficial]

I am a numbers guy.

For my fitness, I track my weight, body composition, skeletal muscle mass, my workouts, the weights, the rest times, the RPE. My sleep is quantified, every last calorie is documented to a degree that would be a Stasi wet dream. I have learned a great deal and made amazing progress.

However, my mental faculties and performance are completely undocumented. I have no idea how my focus, attention span, task switching, impulse control, etc are doing. There's lots of IQ tests, but I'm not looking for IQ.

What little there is available is graphs of self-reported "vibes" data like Daylio which is worse than nothing.

I want to benchmark my brain's functional capacities. How can I do this from home as a layperson?

[u/callmejay → u/GerryAdamsSFOfficial]

I used to do the Burns Depression Inventory fairly regularly. There are similar scales for anxiety.

I'm sure you could find or even create metrics for most of the other traits you listed. An ADHD questionnaire would cover some of them.

There are companies that purport to measure these things, but if I were personally going to get serious about it, I'd probably look to see what scales scientists use to study them and see if you could use those.

Obviously you'd have to find ones that are still valid when taken repeatedly!

[u/Winter_Essay3971 → u/GerryAdamsSFOfficial]

There are various reaction time tests on the internet.

Maybe digit span tests? You don't even need anything fancy, just find a random number generator and generate (say) 12 digits and see how many you get correct. Quick 1-minute test.

Anything relating explicitly to executive function-type skills and not to "IQ" will probably be lifestyle-dependent. I'm a programmer so I use a Google timer to see how many hours I'm actually working each day (not counting breaks or scrolling Reddit, but including meetings -- whatever I'm getting paid for). Obviously tons of things besides raw executive function will affect that number on a given day, so it's noisy. I just use it to get a sense, day-to-day, of how productive I'm being, I haven't tried logging the numbers over time and comparing them to my lifestyle, sleep, etc.