# death to auto-widening yellow brick roads **URL:** \ **Category:** uncategorized\ **Created:** [July 27, 2013, 1:50am UTC](https://forum.beeminder.com/t/death-to-auto-widening-yellow-brick-roads/1440 "2013-07-27T01:50:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![dreev](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.beeminder.com/dreev/32/4311_2.png) [@dreev](https://forum.beeminder.com/u/dreev)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2013, 1:50am UTC](https://forum.beeminder.com/t/death-to-auto-widening-yellow-brick-roads/1440/1 "2013-07-27T01:50:52Z")
This is madness: [blog.beeminder.com/roadwidth](http://blog.beeminder.com/roadwidth) At the time we kind of painted ourselves into that corner and didn’t see a way out. We thought we needed auto-widening to solve a psychological problem with weight loss (or more generally, akrasia with respect to a noisy metric) where you try to skate too close to the edge and sooner or later get burned by a random fluctuation. Auto-widening was a (too) clever solution given the constraints we started with: your first weigh-in in the morning is your official weight, and you don’t get to peek at what it’s going to be before reporting it. In that universe, you need guidance from Beeminder on when to panic. The answer was, if you’re in the wrong lane today then you have to panic because you might be doomed when you step on the scale in the morning. Auto-widening meant it was time to panic if and only if you found yourself in the wrong lane, which is the important bit of psychology. There has to be a way to save up the panic and hit you with it all at once so that you actually do panic. (No wolf-crying.) Auto-widening does that. If you’re in the right lane then you don’t have to panic yet. You can’t lose tomorrow. If you’re in the wrong lane, you can lose tomorrow. (Also it sounds really good – “Beeminder uses fancy maths to automatically adapt to random fluctuation in your weight” – which will make this hard to throw away!) But all the strategery is different in the current universe. Beeminder takes the min weight of the day, and you can keep weighing in all day long, till midnight. So now there’s no true cause for panic unless you’re actually in the red, in which case you have to claw your way back on the road by the end of the day. For a true akratic doing the absolute bare minimum to cling to the edge of their road, auto-widening is now meaningless. If I’m not in the red I just don’t give a shit. A huge amount of cruft and confusion and corner cases (not to mention at least one long-standing bug) in Beeminder will go away when we drop auto-widening. Yay for (eventual) progress! And thanks so much to everyone on this list who helped us hash this out! (And the hashing can continue, of course.) Technical addendum: 1. We’ll keep the first-week leniency: Your weight loss road starts at the max weigh-in from your first week of data. 2. The can’t-lose-tomorrow guarantee will still obtain, in a sense, but only applies for flatlining [1]. The width of each lane of the road is always equal to the current daily rate of the road [2]. So being just into the green today and reporting nothing means blue tomorrow, orange the next day, and red the day after that. [1] [http://blog.beeminder.com/glossary/#flatline](http://blog.beeminder.com/glossary/#flatline) [2] Confusing exception: flat spots have road width equal to max of the width of the preceding and subsequent segments. – [http://dreev.es](http://dreev.es) – search://"Daniel Reeves" Goal tracking + Commitment contracts == [http://beeminder.com](http://beeminder.com) ---
**Author:** ![Philip\_Hellyer](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.beeminder.com/philip_hellyer/32/675_2.png) [@Philip\_Hellyer](https://forum.beeminder.com/u/Philip_Hellyer)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2013, 6:55am UTC](https://forum.beeminder.com/t/death-to-auto-widening-yellow-brick-roads/1440/2 "2013-07-27T06:55:32Z")
Agreed, mostly. I derailed on my weight goal not that long ago, so got some new perspective on this. The road width should continue to be related to the variability. I sometimes have a 1kg delta (in either direction) from day to day, for no obvious reasons. So I’m glad that even when the old can’t-lose-widening isn’t in effect, the road width isn’t strictly governed by my slope, but accommodates random fluctuations. (90% of all daily variance, I believe we claim somewhere.) My current (below the road) road lane-width is 0.75kg, which tells you something about my daily weight fluctuations. My “weight loss” slope is -0.1 kg per week, enough to ensure that I don’t weigh 300lbs when I hit 50, and gentle enough that a series of small sustainable life changes are sufficient to keep me on the road. I’m trying to imagine this goal without a variable width. Under a fixed-width regime, the road feels it’d be like what the roadwidth post described as a “fixed bright line”. Each lane on my road would be 14 grams wide. The Withings scale publishes my weight in 50 gram increments. It seems unlikely that I will see any graph colours other than red and green. (Maybe it works better for more aggressive slopes, and my perspective is atypical.) To be 90% safe, I’d need to stay stupidly far below the road, with about 50 “safe-days”. With variable road-width but no magical-widening, that 90% safe line is the centre-line. (Not that I stay anything like 90% safe today, even with the wider lanes I spend more time in the wrong lane than anywhere else.) I fully agree that I only take drastic measures (like exercising) when I’m in the red. So maybe 90% is the wrong number, but I do think that there’s value in having a variance-based roadwidth. [1] Basing the width on slope will pretty much eliminate the value of having lanes and turn the yellow brick road into a fixed bright line. But I’ve been wrong about how other proposed changes[2] will feel in practice. I’m willing to be a guinea pig. Slope-based widths work really well for do-more goals, where the units measured are directly related to the units of slope. (That’s badly expressed, sorry, because obviously the literal units of measure are the same.) There may be a qualitative difference related to one being a measure of the whole, and one being a measure of a delta. (I’ll ponder that more and try again later.) With do-more there’s a direct connection between going for a run and getting back on the good side of the distance-run graph. The connection with weight loss is less direct. Philip [1] for consistency, that’s the unit that should be used to calculate safe days, and the assumed-gain when flatlining. Similar to our set-a-limit aspirations. Flatlining doesn’t really apply to weight loss goals; like set-a-limit, the non-act of non-reporting should rapidly result in derailment, just to force a datapoint. [2] one of my favourite features is pcrc [3], for example, and I initially worried that it would feel like being on a runaway train. [3] pre-commit to re-commit. q.v. [Precommit to Recommit: The Third Great Beeminder Epiphany | Beeminder Blog](http://blog.beeminder.com/recommit/) On Saturday, 27 July 2013 02:50:52 UTC+1, Daniel Reeves wrote: > This is madness: [The Magical Widening Yellow Brick Road | Beeminder Blog](http://blog.beeminder.com/roadwidth) > > At the time we kind of painted ourselves into that corner and didn’t > see a way out. We thought we needed auto-widening to solve a > psychological problem with weight loss (or more generally, akrasia > with respect to a noisy metric) where you try to skate too close to > the edge and sooner or later get burned by a random fluctuation. > > Auto-widening was a (too) clever solution given the constraints we > started with: your first weigh-in in the morning is your official > weight, and you don’t get to peek at what it’s going to be before > reporting it. In that universe, you need guidance from Beeminder on > when to panic. The answer was, if you’re in the wrong lane today then > you have to panic because you might be doomed when you step on the > scale in the morning. Auto-widening meant it was time to panic if and > only if you found yourself in the wrong lane, which is the important > bit of psychology. There has to be a way to save up the panic and hit > you with it all at once so that you actually do panic. (No > wolf-crying.) Auto-widening does that. If you’re in the right lane > then you don’t have to panic yet. You can’t lose tomorrow. If you’re > in the wrong lane, you can lose tomorrow. > > (Also it sounds really good – “Beeminder uses fancy maths to > automatically adapt to random fluctuation in your weight” – which > will make this hard to throw away!) > > But all the strategery is different in the current universe. Beeminder > takes the min weight of the day, and you can keep weighing in all day > long, till midnight. So now there’s no true cause for panic unless > you’re actually in the red, in which case you have to claw your way > back on the road by the end of the day. For a true akratic doing the > absolute bare minimum to cling to the edge of their road, > auto-widening is now meaningless. If I’m not in the red I just don’t > give a shit. > > A huge amount of cruft and confusion and corner cases (not to mention > at least one long-standing bug) in Beeminder will go away when we drop > auto-widening. > > Yay for (eventual) progress! And thanks so much to everyone on this > list who helped us hash this out! (And the hashing can continue, of > course.) > > Technical addendum: > > 1. We’ll keep the first-week leniency: Your weight loss road starts at > the max weigh-in from your first week of data. > > 2. The can’t-lose-tomorrow guarantee will still obtain, in a sense, > but only applies for flatlining [1]. The width of each lane of the > road is always equal to the current daily rate of the road [2]. So > being just into the green today and reporting nothing means blue > tomorrow, orange the next day, and red the day after that. > > [1] [Beeminder Glossary | Beeminder Blog](http://blog.beeminder.com/glossary/#flatline) > > [2] Confusing exception: flat spots have road width equal to max of > the width of the preceding and subsequent segments. > > – > [http://dreev.es](http://dreev.es) – search://“Daniel Reeves” > Goal tracking + Commitment contracts == [http://beeminder.com](http://beeminder.com) ---
**Author:** ![dreev](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.beeminder.com/dreev/32/4311_2.png) [@dreev](https://forum.beeminder.com/u/dreev)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2013, 2:47am UTC](https://forum.beeminder.com/t/death-to-auto-widening-yellow-brick-roads/1440/3 "2013-07-28T02:47:56Z")
A lot of good points here! Especially your point about how a very shallow road will be razor thin and all your weight loss datapoints will tend to be either green or red. I may be willing to bite the bullet on that. At least you get the proper color transitions (green → blue → orange → red) when not reporting at all (ie, flatlining – [Beeminder Glossary | Beeminder Blog](http://blog.beeminder.com/glossary#flatline) ). I also like your idea of applying pessimistic presumptive reports to weight loss roads. First we need to deploy set-a-limit pessimistic reports globally (it’s still only turned on for a handful of intrepid souls right now, due to some untied loose ends with it). One thing to keep in mind while debating this is The First Rule of Beeminder: > **[Catch-up Unmustered; or, Easier is Harder](https://blog.beeminder.com/catchup/)** > > Rule #1 of Beeminder: Things that make staying on the yellow brick road easier make reaching your overall goal harder. There’s no free lunch. Any leniency today will get paid for down the (wait for it) Road. If that sounds counter-intuitive,... Key quote: Better to push it / procrastinate up to a bright, unambiguous line than to push it / procrastinate up to a line whose exact location is shrouded [or confused or complicated]. So any cleverness with variable road width can only hurt you in the long run. We did it originally to address a specific psychological issue but that issue doesn’t exist anymore. Last point for now: There’s certainly value in a visual indicator of your variance, but I think the turquoise swath could better fill that role. On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:55 PM, pjh [philip@hellyer.net](mailto:philip@hellyer.net) wrote: > Agreed, mostly. I derailed on my weight goal not that long ago, so got some > new perspective on this. > > The road width should continue to be related to the variability. > > I sometimes have a 1kg delta (in either direction) from day to day, for no > obvious reasons. So I’m glad that even when the old can’t-lose-widening > isn’t in effect, the road width isn’t strictly governed by my slope, but > accommodates random fluctuations. (90% of all daily variance, I believe we > claim somewhere.) My current (below the road) road lane-width is 0.75kg, > which tells you something about my daily weight fluctuations. > > My “weight loss” slope is -0.1 kg per week, enough to ensure that I don’t > weigh 300lbs when I hit 50, and gentle enough that a series of small > sustainable life changes are sufficient to keep me on the road. > > I’m trying to imagine this goal without a variable width. Under a > fixed-width regime, the road feels it’d be like what the roadwidth post > described as a “fixed bright line”. Each lane on my road would be 14 grams > wide. The Withings scale publishes my weight in 50 gram increments. It > seems unlikely that I will see any graph colours other than red and green. > (Maybe it works better for more aggressive slopes, and my perspective is > atypical.) > > To be 90% safe, I’d need to stay stupidly far below the road, with about 50 > “safe-days”. With variable road-width but no magical-widening, that 90% > safe line is the centre-line. (Not that I stay anything like 90% safe > today, even with the wider lanes I spend more time in the wrong lane than > anywhere else.) > > I fully agree that I only take drastic measures (like exercising) when I’m > in the red. So maybe 90% is the wrong number, but I do think that there’s > value in having a variance-based roadwidth. [1] Basing the width on slope > will pretty much eliminate the value of having lanes and turn the yellow > brick road into a fixed bright line. > > But I’ve been wrong about how other proposed changes[2] will feel in > practice. I’m willing to be a guinea pig. > > Slope-based widths work really well for do-more goals, where the units > measured are directly related to the units of slope. (That’s badly > expressed, sorry, because obviously the literal units of measure are the > same.) There may be a qualitative difference related to one being a measure > of the whole, and one being a measure of a delta. (I’ll ponder that more > and try again later.) With do-more there’s a direct connection between > going for a run and getting back on the good side of the distance-run graph. > The connection with weight loss is less direct. > > Philip > > [1] for consistency, that’s the unit that should be used to calculate safe > days, and the assumed-gain when flatlining. Similar to our set-a-limit > aspirations. Flatlining doesn’t really apply to weight loss goals; like > set-a-limit, the non-act of non-reporting should rapidly result in > derailment, just to force a datapoint. > > [2] one of my favourite features is pcrc [3], for example, and I initially > worried that it would feel like being on a runaway train. > > [3] pre-commit to re-commit. q.v. [Precommit to Recommit: The Third Great Beeminder Epiphany | Beeminder Blog](http://blog.beeminder.com/recommit/) > > On Saturday, 27 July 2013 02:50:52 UTC+1, Daniel Reeves wrote: > > > This is madness: [The Magical Widening Yellow Brick Road | Beeminder Blog](http://blog.beeminder.com/roadwidth) > > > > At the time we kind of painted ourselves into that corner and didn’t > > see a way out. We thought we needed auto-widening to solve a > > psychological problem with weight loss (or more generally, akrasia > > with respect to a noisy metric) where you try to skate too close to > > the edge and sooner or later get burned by a random fluctuation. > > > > Auto-widening was a (too) clever solution given the constraints we > > started with: your first weigh-in in the morning is your official > > weight, and you don’t get to peek at what it’s going to be before > > reporting it. In that universe, you need guidance from Beeminder on > > when to panic. The answer was, if you’re in the wrong lane today then > > you have to panic because you might be doomed when you step on the > > scale in the morning. Auto-widening meant it was time to panic if and > > only if you found yourself in the wrong lane, which is the important > > bit of psychology. There has to be a way to save up the panic and hit > > you with it all at once so that you actually do panic. (No > > wolf-crying.) Auto-widening does that. If you’re in the right lane > > then you don’t have to panic yet. You can’t lose tomorrow. If you’re > > in the wrong lane, you can lose tomorrow. > > > > (Also it sounds really good – “Beeminder uses fancy maths to > > automatically adapt to random fluctuation in your weight” – which > > will make this hard to throw away!) > > > > But all the strategery is different in the current universe. Beeminder > > takes the min weight of the day, and you can keep weighing in all day > > long, till midnight. So now there’s no true cause for panic unless > > you’re actually in the red, in which case you have to claw your way > > back on the road by the end of the day. For a true akratic doing the > > absolute bare minimum to cling to the edge of their road, > > auto-widening is now meaningless. If I’m not in the red I just don’t > > give a shit. > > > > A huge amount of cruft and confusion and corner cases (not to mention > > at least one long-standing bug) in Beeminder will go away when we drop > > auto-widening. > > > > Yay for (eventual) progress! And thanks so much to everyone on this > > list who helped us hash this out! (And the hashing can continue, of > > course.) > > > > Technical addendum: > > > > 1. We’ll keep the first-week leniency: Your weight loss road starts at > > the max weigh-in from your first week of data. > > > > 2. The can’t-lose-tomorrow guarantee will still obtain, in a sense, > > but only applies for flatlining [1]. The width of each lane of the > > road is always equal to the current daily rate of the road [2]. So > > being just into the green today and reporting nothing means blue > > tomorrow, orange the next day, and red the day after that. > > > > [1] [Beeminder Glossary | Beeminder Blog](http://blog.beeminder.com/glossary/#flatline) > > > > [2] Confusing exception: flat spots have road width equal to max of > > the width of the preceding and subsequent segments. > > > > – > > [http://dreev.es](http://dreev.es) – search://“Daniel Reeves” > > Goal tracking + Commitment contracts == [http://beeminder.com](http://beeminder.com) > > – > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > “Akratics Anonymous” group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [akratics+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com](mailto:akratics+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com). > For more options, visit [https://groups.google.com/groups/opt\_out](https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out). – [http://dreev.es](http://dreev.es) – search://“Daniel Reeves” Goal tracking + Commitment contracts == [http://beeminder.com](http://beeminder.com) ---
**Author:** ![janabeck](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.beeminder.com/janabeck/32/50_2.png) [@janabeck](https://forum.beeminder.com/u/janabeck)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2013, 7:31pm UTC](https://forum.beeminder.com/t/death-to-auto-widening-yellow-brick-roads/1440/4 "2013-07-28T19:31:08Z")
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 10:47 PM, Daniel Reeves [dreeves@beeminder.com](mailto:dreeves@beeminder.com)wrote: > So any cleverness with variable road width can only hurt you in the > long run. We did it originally to address a specific psychological > issue but that issue doesn’t exist anymore. I kept debating whether to jump in on this discussion, but I guess I will now. Because this bit - the psychological issue not existing anymore - is something I just don’t understand (yet?). My caveat: I’m mostly a fan of the auto-widening road because of the way I’ve been using it for a daily measure of blood glucose control, and that’s something that cannot be fixed with the ‘daily minimum’ change, because the measure is always calculated over a whole day. But this is a corner case, obviously. (…And my views in this case are complex because I’m also not convinced that the auto-widening road isn’t _too_ generous, in this case. A really bad day has the potential to make the road really wide, and it takes too long (although no longer with retroratchet, perhaps!) for the road to narrow again.) But aside from my corner case, I also don’t quite see how the ‘daily minimum’ change fixes the problem for weight-loss goals. Sources I’ve read in the past\* say that first-thing-in-the-morning weight tends to be the lowest of the day, and that’s been my (anecdotal) experience. Short of unhealthy solutions that I don’t even want to suggest, I don’t see how people can “claw your way back onto the road by the end of the day.” But perhaps I’m missing something? Jana \*A quick Google now isn’t giving me anything with a credible cited source, but it is confirming that this advice seems to be standard (e.g., here[http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=55489](http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=55489)and here[http://www.lifehack.org/articles/lifestyle/do-you-make-these-10-common-mistakes-before-weighing-yourself.html](http://www.lifehack.org/articles/lifestyle/do-you-make-these-10-common-mistakes-before-weighing-yourself.html)). So, grain of salt. ---
**Author:** ![dreev](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.beeminder.com/dreev/32/4311_2.png) [@dreev](https://forum.beeminder.com/u/dreev)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2013, 8:46pm UTC](https://forum.beeminder.com/t/death-to-auto-widening-yellow-brick-roads/1440/5 "2013-07-29T20:46:42Z")
Ooh, this may be a corner case but it’s an awesome one. Maybe we can keep auto-widening around as an option for custom goals, along with custom road widths. You bring up a great example, though, of why auto-widening is really hard (or perhaps impossible) to get right. If we can’t do it right then it’s probably better to just be explicit and transparent, namely, it’s just up to you to set your own hard cap, to set the yellow brick road high enough to accommodate your fluctuations. We’ve heard good arguments why that’s not very satisfying to have almost all your points below the road, but it may be the lesser of two evils. (Bonus for us if we get rid of the expectation that the road accommodates random fluctuations: not having to field support emails about how a derailment wasn’t legit because it didn’t!) I did just tick off one objection: You don’t need the road itself as a visual indicator of your variance anymore, because the width of the turquoise swath (aka blue-green aura) now uses that algorithm. As for clawing oneself back onto the road, I’ll quote myself from last summer, when I was skating the edge of my weight road. (Interestingly, I haven’t had to do that since beeminding my sugar consumption. And, yes, everything below is not officially recommended!) At 9:40 this morning I weighed 71.85 kg (158.4 lb). That was a pound or so above my weight road, [mass – d – beeminder](http://bmndr.com/d/mass) . So I jumped around the house and did squats and burpees and things until I had sweated out about 2 soda cans’ worth of sweat. Here’s what our scale sent to Beeminder for the hour and half that I repeatedly weighed myself to see if I was on the road yet: 24 71.85 “auto-entered from withings scale at 09:40” 24 72 “auto-entered from withings scale at 09:40” 24 72.05 “auto-entered from withings scale at 09:52” 24 72.05 “auto-entered from withings scale at 09:55” 24 71.85 “auto-entered from withings scale at 10:15” 24 71.85 “auto-entered from withings scale at 10:21” 24 71.95 “auto-entered from withings scale at 10:27” 24 71.75 “auto-entered from withings scale at 10:32” 24 71.85 “auto-entered from withings scale at 10:33” 24 71.9 “auto-entered from withings scale at 10:37” 24 71.9 “auto-entered from withings scale at 10:40” 24 71.85 “auto-entered from withings scale at 10:42” 24 71.65 “auto-entered from withings scale at 10:47” 24 71.4 “auto-entered from withings scale at 10:54” 24 71.55 “auto-entered from withings scale at 10:56” 24 71.4 “auto-entered from withings scale at 11:00” 24 71.55 “auto-entered from withings scale at 11:03” 24 71.5 “auto-entered from withings scale at 11:05” 24 71.25 “auto-entered from withings scale at 11:09” That last one put me back on the yellow brick road, barely. What I’m wondering is if there’s a good rule of thumb for how to game Beeminder like that without endangering one’s health. I’m thinking something like this: 1. Don’t overdress in order to sweat more. You want the side effect of burning a lot of calories. 2. Don’t do this multiple days in a row. Your true weight might be deviating more and more from the road, which means eventually you’ll have to dangerously dehydrate yourself to get back on. 3. Listen to your body. If you feel thirsty, drink. PS: I would’ve just not eaten all day and weighed in again at night but Bethany made chocolate chip muffins so I was pretty motivated to get on my road before leaving the house so I could eat them. On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Jana Beck [jana.eliz.beck@gmail.com](mailto:jana.eliz.beck@gmail.com) wrote: > On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 10:47 PM, Daniel Reeves [dreeves@beeminder.com](mailto:dreeves@beeminder.com) > wrote: > > > So any cleverness with variable road width can only hurt you in the > > long run. We did it originally to address a specific psychological > > issue but that issue doesn’t exist anymore. > > I kept debating whether to jump in on this discussion, but I guess I will > now. Because this bit - the psychological issue not existing anymore - is > something I just don’t understand (yet?). > > My caveat: I’m mostly a fan of the auto-widening road because of the way > I’ve been using it for a daily measure of blood glucose control, and that’s > something that cannot be fixed with the ‘daily minimum’ change, because the > measure is always calculated over a whole day. But this is a corner case, > obviously. (…And my views in this case are complex because I’m also not > convinced that the auto-widening road isn’t _too_ generous, in this case. A > really bad day has the potential to make the road really wide, and it takes > too long (although no longer with retroratchet, perhaps!) for the road to > narrow again.) > > But aside from my corner case, I also don’t quite see how the ‘daily > minimum’ change fixes the problem for weight-loss goals. Sources I’ve read > in the past\* say that first-thing-in-the-morning weight tends to be the > lowest of the day, and that’s been my (anecdotal) experience. Short of > unhealthy solutions that I don’t even want to suggest, I don’t see how > people can “claw your way back onto the road by the end of the day.” But > perhaps I’m missing something? > > Jana > > \*A quick Google now isn’t giving me anything with a credible cited source, > but it is confirming that this advice seems to be standard (e.g., here and > here). So, grain of salt. > > – > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > “Akratics Anonymous” group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [akratics+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com](mailto:akratics+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com). > For more options, visit [https://groups.google.com/groups/opt\_out](https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out). – [http://dreev.es](http://dreev.es) – search://“Daniel Reeves” Goal tracking + Commitment contracts == [http://beeminder.com](http://beeminder.com) ---
**Author:** ![Katherine\_Baxter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/839c29/32.png) [@Katherine\_Baxter](https://forum.beeminder.com/u/Katherine_Baxter)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2013, 1:47pm UTC](https://forum.beeminder.com/t/death-to-auto-widening-yellow-brick-roads/1440/6 "2013-08-02T13:47:40Z")
I just joined this list, and I’ll probably have something more substantial to say about weight goals later after reading more of the discussion, but I wanted to reply now because I object pretty strongly to the idea of letting you weigh in multiple times in one day and taking the lowest value. I had no idea (and now wish I still didn’t know) it worked that way now. I always weigh myself only once, first thing in the morning. Later in the day when I’m hydrated and fed, I am ~5lbs heavier. That’s 3.5% of my weight for me - it would be more for a larger person. If I’m off my road when I first weigh in in the morning, I don’t think there’s anything healthy I can do to get back on later in the day, and I definitely don’t want to incentivize myself to do unhealthy things just to stay on my road. I’m adding fine print to my weight goal that says I am only allowed to record the first weight I measure on a particular day. Why on earth does it work this way? On Friday, July 26, 2013 9:50:52 PM UTC-4, Daniel Reeves wrote: > This is madness: [The Magical Widening Yellow Brick Road | Beeminder Blog](http://blog.beeminder.com/roadwidth) > > At the time we kind of painted ourselves into that corner and didn’t > see a way out. We thought we needed auto-widening to solve a > psychological problem with weight loss (or more generally, akrasia > with respect to a noisy metric) where you try to skate too close to > the edge and sooner or later get burned by a random fluctuation. > > Auto-widening was a (too) clever solution given the constraints we > started with: your first weigh-in in the morning is your official > weight, and you don’t get to peek at what it’s going to be before > reporting it. In that universe, you need guidance from Beeminder on > when to panic. The answer was, if you’re in the wrong lane today then > you have to panic because you might be doomed when you step on the > scale in the morning. Auto-widening meant it was time to panic if and > only if you found yourself in the wrong lane, which is the important > bit of psychology. There has to be a way to save up the panic and hit > you with it all at once so that you actually do panic. (No > wolf-crying.) Auto-widening does that. If you’re in the right lane > then you don’t have to panic yet. You can’t lose tomorrow. If you’re > in the wrong lane, you can lose tomorrow. > > (Also it sounds really good – “Beeminder uses fancy maths to > automatically adapt to random fluctuation in your weight” – which > will make this hard to throw away!) > > But all the strategery is different in the current universe. Beeminder > takes the min weight of the day, and you can keep weighing in all day > long, till midnight. So now there’s no true cause for panic unless > you’re actually in the red, in which case you have to claw your way > back on the road by the end of the day. For a true akratic doing the > absolute bare minimum to cling to the edge of their road, > auto-widening is now meaningless. If I’m not in the red I just don’t > give a shit. > > A huge amount of cruft and confusion and corner cases (not to mention > at least one long-standing bug) in Beeminder will go away when we drop > auto-widening. > > Yay for (eventual) progress! And thanks so much to everyone on this > list who helped us hash this out! (And the hashing can continue, of > course.) > > Technical addendum: > > 1. We’ll keep the first-week leniency: Your weight loss road starts at > the max weigh-in from your first week of data. > > 2. The can’t-lose-tomorrow guarantee will still obtain, in a sense, > but only applies for flatlining [1]. The width of each lane of the > road is always equal to the current daily rate of the road [2]. So > being just into the green today and reporting nothing means blue > tomorrow, orange the next day, and red the day after that. > > [1] [Beeminder Glossary | Beeminder Blog](http://blog.beeminder.com/glossary/#flatline) > > [2] Confusing exception: flat spots have road width equal to max of > the width of the preceding and subsequent segments. > > – > [http://dreev.es](http://dreev.es) – search://“Daniel Reeves” > Goal tracking + Commitment contracts == [http://beeminder.com](http://beeminder.com) ---
**Author:** ![Philip\_Hellyer](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.beeminder.com/philip_hellyer/32/675_2.png) [@Philip\_Hellyer](https://forum.beeminder.com/u/Philip_Hellyer)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2013, 2:43pm UTC](https://forum.beeminder.com/t/death-to-auto-widening-yellow-brick-roads/1440/7 "2013-08-02T14:43:26Z")
One of the benefits of Beeminder graphs is the predictability that they bring to my life. At the extreme, I react to beemergency days and JFDI the task. At its best, I will notice that my gym-going graph will be in the red within 3 days, so I plan a gym morning into my schedule. Being able to predict when the emergency days are going to hit, and take steps to make my life less reactive, is one of the intangible benefits of Beeminder.[1] Weight graphs are not predictable in the same way. I can see my gym-going emergency day coming, but I won’t know that it’s a weight beemergency until I stand on the scale in the morning. [2] This morning was such a day, and happily I had already intended to go to the gym. (Turns out that it’s possible to get back on the road without resorting to Danny’s dozen weigh-ins. 🙂 My first weigh-in was well into the red. I had a bit of breakfast, ran to the gym, swam, stretched, and ran back, adequately hydrated throughout. And weighed-in at 0.3kg lighter. Sufficient to get me back on the road & safely achieved.) We used to only allow one weigh-in each day, and I think it caused people to dread standing on the scale. So they’d not weigh in daily, which meant they’d lose sight of their progress (or regress), which meant they’d be more likely to derail, etc. That was ‘fixed’ by the road-widening guarantee. So Danny’s absolutely right that we’ve piled one hack on top of another, and that it’s high time we identify & resolve the underlying problem. (@Katherine: You can, by emailing support, have us change how multiple weigh-ins are counted or aggregated. I think “first of the day” is still an option.) I don’t have a problem with doing my daily weigh-in, so the argument that I’ll still step through the colours on my way to derailing doesn’t apply to me. (And wouldn’t occur if presumptive-pessimism is implemented.) I think that the turquoise swath itself might be vestigial; it used to clearly show the difference between actual data slope and road slope. With auto-re-railment, most of my data points follow the road, and the turquoise swath does the same. (I’ve turned the swath back on for a few goals to see whether it’s more interesting than I remember.) I’ve always liked that we treat different types of graph differently. Weight loss graphs are for absolute measures that vary, but where the goal is a downward trend. This is substantively different from counting units of progress that increase monotonically. It seems that a razor-thin road will force me into exactly the situation that Danny wants to avoid. My reality will be governed by an indiscernible and invisible line somewhere below the road. I predict an increase in derailments.[3] The occasional derailment on the path to a goal is fine, provided that I think I’ve made good progress that wouldn’t have occurred without Beeminder. Seemingly spurious beyond-my-control derailments don’t fall in that category. Double plus bad, on so many levels. Having said all of that: It’s possible that a presumptively-pessimistic view of safe-days will be enough to let me see where I really am with respect to the road edge. It certainly would change the games that I can play with myself; instead of paying slightly more attention to my diet when I’m orange, that will need to become a rule like ‘if today I’m heavier than yesterday’ or ‘if fewer than 2 safe days’ or something less obviously derived from the graph and its colouring. But I’m still doubtful that this is for the best, and still welcome being mistaken. Philip [1] My life seems to be in a continual state of imbalance. If I’m on top of my physical health, my work suffers. If I’m on top of conference speaking, my other commitments suffer. If I’m caught up on email, something else suffers. And so on. One of the roles that Beeminder plays for me is to ensure that I keep all the important plates spinning a little, regardless of where my impetuous focus currently lies. [2] For this same reason, auto-data goals need to do their first fetch before I check my graphs in the morning. Can’t be finding out part-way through my day that something is going to derail at midnight. (I suppose that I could force this behaviour by setting a stupidly early morning panic-email time, but it should be standard.) [3] Worse, unexpected derailments will encourage more conservative roads, which are thinner in the new regime, which will cause more derailments, etc. Which screws with the benefit of beeminding. (And is reminiscent of the dreaded-weigh-in loop that lead us to auto-widening roads in the first place…) On Friday, August 2, 2013 2:47:40 PM UTC+1, Katherine Baxter wrote: > I just joined this list, and I’ll probably have something more substantial > to say about weight goals later after reading more of the discussion, but I > wanted to reply now because I object pretty strongly to the idea of letting > you weigh in multiple times in one day and taking the lowest value. I had > no idea (and now wish I still didn’t know) it worked that way now. I always > weigh myself only once, first thing in the morning. Later in the day when > I’m hydrated and fed, I am ~5lbs heavier. That’s 3.5% of my weight for me - > it would be more for a larger person. If I’m off my road when I first weigh > in in the morning, I don’t think there’s anything healthy I can do to get > back on later in the day, and I definitely don’t want to incentivize myself > to do unhealthy things just to stay on my road. > > I’m adding fine print to my weight goal that says I am only allowed to > record the first weight I measure on a particular day. > > Why on earth does it work this way? > > On Friday, July 26, 2013 9:50:52 PM UTC-4, Daniel Reeves wrote: > > > This is madness: [The Magical Widening Yellow Brick Road | Beeminder Blog](http://blog.beeminder.com/roadwidth) > > > > At the time we kind of painted ourselves into that corner and didn’t > > see a way out. We thought we needed auto-widening to solve a > > psychological problem with weight loss (or more generally, akrasia > > with respect to a noisy metric) where you try to skate too close to > > the edge and sooner or later get burned by a random fluctuation. > > > > Auto-widening was a (too) clever solution given the constraints we > > started with: your first weigh-in in the morning is your official > > weight, and you don’t get to peek at what it’s going to be before > > reporting it. In that universe, you need guidance from Beeminder on > > when to panic. The answer was, if you’re in the wrong lane today then > > you have to panic because you might be doomed when you step on the > > scale in the morning. Auto-widening meant it was time to panic if and > > only if you found yourself in the wrong lane, which is the important > > bit of psychology. There has to be a way to save up the panic and hit > > you with it all at once so that you actually do panic. (No > > wolf-crying.) Auto-widening does that. If you’re in the right lane > > then you don’t have to panic yet. You can’t lose tomorrow. If you’re > > in the wrong lane, you can lose tomorrow. > > > > (Also it sounds really good – “Beeminder uses fancy maths to > > automatically adapt to random fluctuation in your weight” – which > > will make this hard to throw away!) > > > > But all the strategery is different in the current universe. Beeminder > > takes the min weight of the day, and you can keep weighing in all day > > long, till midnight. So now there’s no true cause for panic unless > > you’re actually in the red, in which case you have to claw your way > > back on the road by the end of the day. For a true akratic doing the > > absolute bare minimum to cling to the edge of their road, > > auto-widening is now meaningless. If I’m not in the red I just don’t > > give a shit. > > > > A huge amount of cruft and confusion and corner cases (not to mention > > at least one long-standing bug) in Beeminder will go away when we drop > > auto-widening. > > > > Yay for (eventual) progress! And thanks so much to everyone on this > > list who helped us hash this out! (And the hashing can continue, of > > course.) > > > > Technical addendum: > > > > 1. We’ll keep the first-week leniency: Your weight loss road starts at > > the max weigh-in from your first week of data. > > > > 2. The can’t-lose-tomorrow guarantee will still obtain, in a sense, > > but only applies for flatlining [1]. The width of each lane of the > > road is always equal to the current daily rate of the road [2]. So > > being just into the green today and reporting nothing means blue > > tomorrow, orange the next day, and red the day after that. > > > > [1] [Beeminder Glossary | Beeminder Blog](http://blog.beeminder.com/glossary/#flatline) > > > > [2] Confusing exception: flat spots have road width equal to max of > > the width of the preceding and subsequent segments. > > > > – > > [http://dreev.es](http://dreev.es) – search://“Daniel Reeves” > > Goal tracking + Commitment contracts == [http://beeminder.com](http://beeminder.com) ---
**Author:** ![Jill\_Renaud](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a183cd/32.png) [@Jill\_Renaud](https://forum.beeminder.com/u/Jill_Renaud)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2013, 3:02pm UTC](https://forum.beeminder.com/t/death-to-auto-widening-yellow-brick-roads/1440/8 "2013-08-02T15:02:36Z")
Philip, I really like your response here. I also agree with your opinion that a razor thin road will lead to more derailments with regards to weight loss roads. That said, I think the auto-widening feature can be detrimental to weight loss. I’ve found that having a fixed width (relatively wide) road has been working wonders for me. When the road was variable width I’d play games that were ultimately bad for my progress. If I was on the right side of the road one day, I’d go hog wild and pig out to keep my road wide. Obviously going hog wild and pigging out is not beneficial for weight loss. Since January I’ve had a my weight +/- 3 lbs road which seems to accommodate my womanly fluctuations and also water retention due to medicines that I take. I also agree that taking the lowest weight of the day is beneficial because the very first weight of the morning isn’t always the lowest. I’m not really sure what the optimal solution is with regards to weight loss goals for everyone, but I think after 5 years of beeminding/kibotzing I’ve figured out what works for me. -Jill On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 10:43 AM, pjh [philip@hellyer.net](mailto:philip@hellyer.net) wrote: > One of the benefits of Beeminder graphs is the predictability that they > bring to my life. At the extreme, I react to beemergency days and JFDI the > task. At its best, I will notice that my gym-going graph will be in the > red within 3 days, so I plan a gym morning into my schedule. Being able to > predict when the emergency days are going to hit, and take steps to make my > life less reactive, is one of the intangible benefits of Beeminder.[1] > > Weight graphs are not predictable in the same way. I can see my gym-going > emergency day coming, but I won’t know that it’s a weight beemergency until > I stand on the scale in the morning. [2] > > This morning was such a day, and happily I had already intended to go to > the gym. (Turns out that it’s possible to get back on the road without > resorting to Danny’s dozen weigh-ins. 🙂 My first weigh-in was well into > the red. I had a bit of breakfast, ran to the gym, swam, stretched, and > ran back, adequately hydrated throughout. And weighed-in at 0.3kg lighter. > Sufficient to get me back on the road & safely achieved.) > > We used to only allow one weigh-in each day, and I think it caused people > to dread standing on the scale. So they’d not weigh in daily, which meant > they’d lose sight of their progress (or regress), which meant they’d be > more likely to derail, etc. That was ‘fixed’ by the road-widening > guarantee. So Danny’s absolutely right that we’ve piled one hack on top of > another, and that it’s high time we identify & resolve the underlying > problem. > > (@Katherine: You can, by emailing support, have us change how multiple > weigh-ins are counted or aggregated. I think “first of the day” is still an > option.) > > I don’t have a problem with doing my daily weigh-in, so the argument that > I’ll still step through the colours on my way to derailing doesn’t apply to > me. (And wouldn’t occur if presumptive-pessimism is implemented.) I think > that the turquoise swath itself might be vestigial; it used to clearly show > the difference between actual data slope and road slope. With > auto-re-railment, most of my data points follow the road, and the turquoise > swath does the same. (I’ve turned the swath back on for a few goals to see > whether it’s more interesting than I remember.) > > I’ve always liked that we treat different types of graph differently. > Weight loss graphs are for absolute measures that vary, but where the goal > is a downward trend. This is substantively different from counting units > of progress that increase monotonically. > > It seems that a razor-thin road will force me into exactly the situation > that Danny wants to avoid. My reality will be governed by an indiscernible > and invisible line somewhere below the road. I predict an increase in > derailments.[3] > > The occasional derailment on the path to a goal is fine, provided that I > think I’ve made good progress that wouldn’t have occurred without > Beeminder. Seemingly spurious beyond-my-control derailments don’t fall in > that category. Double plus bad, on so many levels. > > Having said all of that: > > It’s possible that a presumptively-pessimistic view of safe-days will be > enough to let me see where I really am with respect to the road edge. > > It certainly would change the games that I can play with myself; instead > of paying slightly more attention to my diet when I’m orange, that will > need to become a rule like ‘if today I’m heavier than yesterday’ or ‘if > fewer than 2 safe days’ or something less obviously derived from the graph > and its colouring. > > But I’m still doubtful that this is for the best, and still welcome being > mistaken. > > Philip > > [1] My life seems to be in a continual state of imbalance. If I’m on top > of my physical health, my work suffers. If I’m on top of conference > speaking, my other commitments suffer. If I’m caught up on email, > something else suffers. And so on. One of the roles that Beeminder plays > for me is to ensure that I keep all the important plates spinning a little, > regardless of where my impetuous focus currently lies. > > [2] For this same reason, auto-data goals need to do their first fetch > before I check my graphs in the morning. Can’t be finding out part-way > through my day that something is going to derail at midnight. (I suppose > that I could force this behaviour by setting a stupidly early morning > panic-email time, but it should be standard.) > > [3] Worse, unexpected derailments will encourage more conservative roads, > which are thinner in the new regime, which will cause more derailments, > etc. Which screws with the benefit of beeminding. (And is reminiscent of > the dreaded-weigh-in loop that lead us to auto-widening roads in the first > place…) > > On Friday, August 2, 2013 2:47:40 PM UTC+1, Katherine Baxter wrote: > > > I just joined this list, and I’ll probably have something more > > substantial to say about weight goals later after reading more of the > > discussion, but I wanted to reply now because I object pretty strongly to > > the idea of letting you weigh in multiple times in one day and taking the > > lowest value. I had no idea (and now wish I still didn’t know) it worked > > that way now. I always weigh myself only once, first thing in the morning. > > Later in the day when I’m hydrated and fed, I am ~5lbs heavier. That’s 3.5% > > of my weight for me - it would be more for a larger person. If I’m off my > > road when I first weigh in in the morning, I don’t think there’s anything > > healthy I can do to get back on later in the day, and I definitely don’t > > want to incentivize myself to do unhealthy things just to stay on my road. > > > > I’m adding fine print to my weight goal that says I am only allowed to > > record the first weight I measure on a particular day. > > > > Why on earth does it work this way? > > > > On Friday, July 26, 2013 9:50:52 PM UTC-4, Daniel Reeves wrote: > > > > > This is madness: [The Magical Widening Yellow Brick Road | Beeminder Blog](http://blog.beeminder.com/roadwidth) > > > > > > At the time we kind of painted ourselves into that corner and didn’t > > > see a way out. We thought we needed auto-widening to solve a > > > psychological problem with weight loss (or more generally, akrasia > > > with respect to a noisy metric) where you try to skate too close to > > > the edge and sooner or later get burned by a random fluctuation. > > > > > > Auto-widening was a (too) clever solution given the constraints we > > > started with: your first weigh-in in the morning is your official > > > weight, and you don’t get to peek at what it’s going to be before > > > reporting it. In that universe, you need guidance from Beeminder on > > > when to panic. The answer was, if you’re in the wrong lane today then > > > you have to panic because you might be doomed when you step on the > > > scale in the morning. Auto-widening meant it was time to panic if and > > > only if you found yourself in the wrong lane, which is the important > > > bit of psychology. There has to be a way to save up the panic and hit > > > you with it all at once so that you actually do panic. (No > > > wolf-crying.) Auto-widening does that. If you’re in the right lane > > > then you don’t have to panic yet. You can’t lose tomorrow. If you’re > > > in the wrong lane, you can lose tomorrow. > > > > > > (Also it sounds really good – “Beeminder uses fancy maths to > > > automatically adapt to random fluctuation in your weight” – which > > > will make this hard to throw away!) > > > > > > But all the strategery is different in the current universe. Beeminder > > > takes the min weight of the day, and you can keep weighing in all day > > > long, till midnight. So now there’s no true cause for panic unless > > > you’re actually in the red, in which case you have to claw your way > > > back on the road by the end of the day. For a true akratic doing the > > > absolute bare minimum to cling to the edge of their road, > > > auto-widening is now meaningless. If I’m not in the red I just don’t > > > give a shit. > > > > > > A huge amount of cruft and confusion and corner cases (not to mention > > > at least one long-standing bug) in Beeminder will go away when we drop > > > auto-widening. > > > > > > Yay for (eventual) progress! And thanks so much to everyone on this > > > list who helped us hash this out! (And the hashing can continue, of > > > course.) > > > > > > Technical addendum: > > > > > > 1. We’ll keep the first-week leniency: Your weight loss road starts at > > > the max weigh-in from your first week of data. > > > > > > 2. The can’t-lose-tomorrow guarantee will still obtain, in a sense, > > > but only applies for flatlining [1]. The width of each lane of the > > > road is always equal to the current daily rate of the road [2]. So > > > being just into the green today and reporting nothing means blue > > > tomorrow, orange the next day, and red the day after that. > > > > > > [1] [http://blog.beeminder.com/\*\*glossary/#flatline](http://blog.beeminder.com/**glossary/#flatline)[http://blog.beeminder.com/glossary/#flatline](http://blog.beeminder.com/glossary/#flatline) > > > > > > [2] Confusing exception: flat spots have road width equal to max of > > > the width of the preceding and subsequent segments. > > > > > > – > > > [http://dreev.es](http://dreev.es) – search://“Daniel Reeves” > > > Goal tracking + Commitment contracts == [http://beeminder.com](http://beeminder.com) > > > > – > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > “Akratics Anonymous” group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > > email to [akratics+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com](mailto:akratics+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com). > > For more options, visit [https://groups.google.com/groups/opt\_out](https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out). ---
**Author:** ![Philip\_Hellyer](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.beeminder.com/philip_hellyer/32/675_2.png) [@Philip\_Hellyer](https://forum.beeminder.com/u/Philip_Hellyer)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2013, 3:50pm UTC](https://forum.beeminder.com/t/death-to-auto-widening-yellow-brick-roads/1440/9 "2013-08-02T15:50:06Z")
Thanks Jill. I should probably have re-iterated that I also think that a somewhat wider road is the right answer, but with a width based on the variability of the data, not on the road slope. Auto-widening definitely increased the games I could play and still stay on the road, so I’m all for turning that off. It’s a good point that each of us is figuring out how to employ beeminder’s tools in a way that works for us as individuals. Simultaneously the Beeminder team is trying to make the tools work for most people out-of-the-box. The dynamic tension in that relationship is one of the things that helps both sides keep improving. Philip On Friday, August 2, 2013 4:02:36 PM UTC+1, Jill Renaud wrote: > Philip, > > I really like your response here. I also agree with your opinion that a > razor thin road will lead to more derailments with regards to weight loss > roads. That said, I think the auto-widening feature can be detrimental to > weight loss. I’ve found that having a fixed width (relatively wide) road > has been working wonders for me. When the road was variable width I’d play > games that were ultimately bad for my progress. If I was on the right side > of the road one day, I’d go hog wild and pig out to keep my road wide. > Obviously going hog wild and pigging out is not beneficial for weight > loss. Since January I’ve had a my weight +/- 3 lbs road which seems to > accommodate my womanly fluctuations and also water retention due to > medicines that I take. > > I also agree that taking the lowest weight of the day is beneficial > because the very first weight of the morning isn’t always the lowest. I’m > not really sure what the optimal solution is with regards to weight loss > goals for everyone, but I think after 5 years of beeminding/kibotzing I’ve > figured out what works for me. > > -Jill > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 10:43 AM, pjh \<[phi...@hellyer.net](mailto:phi...@hellyer.net) \\>wrote: > > > One of the benefits of Beeminder graphs is the predictability that they > > bring to my life. At the extreme, I react to beemergency days and JFDI the > > task. At its best, I will notice that my gym-going graph will be in the > > red within 3 days, so I plan a gym morning into my schedule. Being able to > > predict when the emergency days are going to hit, and take steps to make my > > life less reactive, is one of the intangible benefits of Beeminder.[1] > > > > Weight graphs are not predictable in the same way. I can see my gym-going > > emergency day coming, but I won’t know that it’s a weight beemergency until > > I stand on the scale in the morning. [2] > > > > This morning was such a day, and happily I had already intended to go to > > the gym. (Turns out that it’s possible to get back on the road without > > resorting to Danny’s dozen weigh-ins. 🙂 My first weigh-in was well into > > the red. I had a bit of breakfast, ran to the gym, swam, stretched, and > > ran back, adequately hydrated throughout. And weighed-in at 0.3kg lighter. > > Sufficient to get me back on the road & safely achieved.) > > > > We used to only allow one weigh-in each day, and I think it caused people > > to dread standing on the scale. So they’d not weigh in daily, which meant > > they’d lose sight of their progress (or regress), which meant they’d be > > more likely to derail, etc. That was ‘fixed’ by the road-widening > > guarantee. So Danny’s absolutely right that we’ve piled one hack on top of > > another, and that it’s high time we identify & resolve the underlying > > problem. > > > > (@Katherine: You can, by emailing support, have us change how multiple > > weigh-ins are counted or aggregated. I think “first of the day” is still an > > option.) > > > > I don’t have a problem with doing my daily weigh-in, so the argument that > > I’ll still step through the colours on my way to derailing doesn’t apply to > > me. (And wouldn’t occur if presumptive-pessimism is implemented.) I think > > that the turquoise swath itself might be vestigial; it used to clearly show > > the difference between actual data slope and road slope. With > > auto-re-railment, most of my data points follow the road, and the turquoise > > swath does the same. (I’ve turned the swath back on for a few goals to see > > whether it’s more interesting than I remember.) > > > > I’ve always liked that we treat different types of graph differently. > > Weight loss graphs are for absolute measures that vary, but where the goal > > is a downward trend. This is substantively different from counting units > > of progress that increase monotonically. > > > > It seems that a razor-thin road will force me into exactly the situation > > that Danny wants to avoid. My reality will be governed by an indiscernible > > and invisible line somewhere below the road. I predict an increase in > > derailments.[3] > > > > The occasional derailment on the path to a goal is fine, provided that I > > think I’ve made good progress that wouldn’t have occurred without > > Beeminder. Seemingly spurious beyond-my-control derailments don’t fall in > > that category. Double plus bad, on so many levels. > > > > Having said all of that: > > > > It’s possible that a presumptively-pessimistic view of safe-days will be > > enough to let me see where I really am with respect to the road edge. > > > > It certainly would change the games that I can play with myself; instead > > of paying slightly more attention to my diet when I’m orange, that will > > need to become a rule like ‘if today I’m heavier than yesterday’ or ‘if > > fewer than 2 safe days’ or something less obviously derived from the graph > > and its colouring. > > > > But I’m still doubtful that this is for the best, and still welcome being > > mistaken. > > > > Philip > > > > [1] My life seems to be in a continual state of imbalance. If I’m on top > > of my physical health, my work suffers. If I’m on top of conference > > speaking, my other commitments suffer. If I’m caught up on email, > > something else suffers. And so on. One of the roles that Beeminder plays > > for me is to ensure that I keep all the important plates spinning a little, > > regardless of where my impetuous focus currently lies. > > > > [2] For this same reason, auto-data goals need to do their first fetch > > before I check my graphs in the morning. Can’t be finding out part-way > > through my day that something is going to derail at midnight. (I suppose > > that I could force this behaviour by setting a stupidly early morning > > panic-email time, but it should be standard.) > > > > [3] Worse, unexpected derailments will encourage more conservative roads, > > which are thinner in the new regime, which will cause more derailments, > > etc. Which screws with the benefit of beeminding. (And is reminiscent of > > the dreaded-weigh-in loop that lead us to auto-widening roads in the first > > place…) > > > > On Friday, August 2, 2013 2:47:40 PM UTC+1, Katherine Baxter wrote: > > > > > I just joined this list, and I’ll probably have something more > > > substantial to say about weight goals later after reading more of the > > > discussion, but I wanted to reply now because I object pretty strongly to > > > the idea of letting you weigh in multiple times in one day and taking the > > > lowest value. I had no idea (and now wish I still didn’t know) it worked > > > that way now. I always weigh myself only once, first thing in the morning. > > > Later in the day when I’m hydrated and fed, I am ~5lbs heavier. That’s 3.5% > > > of my weight for me - it would be more for a larger person. If I’m off my > > > road when I first weigh in in the morning, I don’t think there’s anything > > > healthy I can do to get back on later in the day, and I definitely don’t > > > want to incentivize myself to do unhealthy things just to stay on my road. > > > > > > I’m adding fine print to my weight goal that says I am only allowed to > > > record the first weight I measure on a particular day. > > > > > > Why on earth does it work this way? > > > > > > On Friday, July 26, 2013 9:50:52 PM UTC-4, Daniel Reeves wrote: > > > > > > > This is madness: [The Magical Widening Yellow Brick Road | Beeminder Blog](http://blog.beeminder.com/roadwidth) > > > > > > > > At the time we kind of painted ourselves into that corner and didn’t > > > > see a way out. We thought we needed auto-widening to solve a > > > > psychological problem with weight loss (or more generally, akrasia > > > > with respect to a noisy metric) where you try to skate too close to > > > > the edge and sooner or later get burned by a random fluctuation. > > > > > > > > Auto-widening was a (too) clever solution given the constraints we > > > > started with: your first weigh-in in the morning is your official > > > > weight, and you don’t get to peek at what it’s going to be before > > > > reporting it. In that universe, you need guidance from Beeminder on > > > > when to panic. The answer was, if you’re in the wrong lane today then > > > > you have to panic because you might be doomed when you step on the > > > > scale in the morning. Auto-widening meant it was time to panic if and > > > > only if you found yourself in the wrong lane, which is the important > > > > bit of psychology. There has to be a way to save up the panic and hit > > > > you with it all at once so that you actually do panic. (No > > > > wolf-crying.) Auto-widening does that. If you’re in the right lane > > > > then you don’t have to panic yet. You can’t lose tomorrow. If you’re > > > > in the wrong lane, you can lose tomorrow. > > > > > > > > (Also it sounds really good – “Beeminder uses fancy maths to > > > > automatically adapt to random fluctuation in your weight” – which > > > > will make this hard to throw away!) > > > > > > > > But all the strategery is different in the current universe. Beeminder > > > > takes the min weight of the day, and you can keep weighing in all day > > > > long, till midnight. So now there’s no true cause for panic unless > > > > you’re actually in the red, in which case you have to claw your way > > > > back on the road by the end of the day. For a true akratic doing the > > > > absolute bare minimum to cling to the edge of their road, > > > > auto-widening is now meaningless. If I’m not in the red I just don’t > > > > give a shit. > > > > > > > > A huge amount of cruft and confusion and corner cases (not to mention > > > > at least one long-standing bug) in Beeminder will go away when we drop > > > > auto-widening. > > > > > > > > Yay for (eventual) progress! And thanks so much to everyone on this > > > > list who helped us hash this out! (And the hashing can continue, of > > > > course.) > > > > > > > > Technical addendum: > > > > > > > > 1. We’ll keep the first-week leniency: Your weight loss road starts at > > > > the max weigh-in from your first week of data. > > > > > > > > 2. The can’t-lose-tomorrow guarantee will still obtain, in a sense, > > > > but only applies for flatlining [1]. The width of each lane of the > > > > road is always equal to the current daily rate of the road [2]. So > > > > being just into the green today and reporting nothing means blue > > > > tomorrow, orange the next day, and red the day after that. > > > > > > > > [1] [http://blog.beeminder.com/\*\*glossary/#flatline](http://blog.beeminder.com/**glossary/#flatline)[http://blog.beeminder.com/glossary/#flatline](http://blog.beeminder.com/glossary/#flatline) > > > > > > > > [2] Confusing exception: flat spots have road width equal to max of > > > > the width of the preceding and subsequent segments. > > > > > > > > – > > > > [http://dreev.es](http://dreev.es) – search://“Daniel Reeves” > > > > Goal tracking + Commitment contracts == [http://beeminder.com](http://beeminder.com) > > > > > > – > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > > “Akratics Anonymous” group. > > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > > > email to [akratics+u...@googlegroups.com](mailto:akratics+u...@googlegroups.com) \. > > > For more options, visit [https://groups.google.com/groups/opt\_out](https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out). ---
**Author:** ![Essentiae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dec6dc/32.png) [@Essentiae](https://forum.beeminder.com/u/Essentiae)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2013, 11:22am UTC](https://forum.beeminder.com/t/death-to-auto-widening-yellow-brick-roads/1440/10 "2013-08-06T11:22:16Z")
TLDR: I’ve bolded the parts that I think matter; so that you don’t have to read so much of my yammer to get to my points. I’m a fan of the auto-widening road, but I think there might be another way to accommodate my concerns about losing it. The problem is that it uses custom goal settings, to which most users won’t have access. Can I recommend that _if you get rid of auto-widening roads, you make some of the custom features available for the “lose/gain weight” type of goals_? (Maybe just one of these could be allowed per user so it’s not a loophole around not having access to custom goals if you’re not a subscriber.) Today is an example case of what worries me. I’ve recently deleted my “max safe days” on most of my goals (for unrelated reasons). Thank goodness, because _today when I weighed in, I weighed in at 2.2 lbs less than yesterday_. When I got on the scale and saw that, I didn’t think “Hmm, I wonder if I’m dehydrated” or “I wonder if this is closer to my real weight (seeing as the most recent point were a little higher than the “group” of nearby points) and I’m balancing out again”. Instead,\* I thought “Shit! That’s going to screw up my graph” This is not the right response to have elicited by a low weigh-in.\* (I wasn’t sure when exactly auto-widening would die, or if it perhaps already has, so I wasn’t sure if I’d be affected yet.) See, _if I had kept my max-safe-days_ (which I want to use to keep myself pushing forward rather than coasting if/when I have particularly good months) then _I’d be in trouble because it would have tightened my road and I would derail tomorrow or the next day when a balanced weigh-in occurs again._ _This is solved, probably, by custom road width and using “edgy”_(“put the initial point on the road edge instead of centerline”) so that if the max-safe-days kicks in the new point will (I assume) be at the bottom of the road so that it won’t shove my road so far down that I’m screwed, and it also won’t require me to have a road width 2x the necessary size. This also would help what Jill has called “womanly fluctuations” as well as medical situations. I have a thing that makes it such that some days I weigh much more than my “weight”, as well, and so having the ability to set my own road width could be really helpful in allowing me to have a road that is as steep as I want and also as wide as I want. _(Something I can do with a custom goal, but new customers can’t.)_ All of this still doesn’t really fix the one thing that I think is more important, though. I think the focus on the “daily” part is kind of off. _The idea that if we’re over the line one day we can try to claw our ways back down that day to correct it is kind of silly (and seems an unhealthy way to look at weight loss)._ [1] If I’ve reached the point that I’m over the line, I may have already lost (unless it was a weird, random upward fluctuation). \*Today’s datapoint should matter less in weight loss goals than the trend. Today should matter only in so far as it’s a piece of that trend. I would greatly prefer having a road that is calibrated to derail according to an average. I think that’s way more stable a measurement for weight loss datapoints (because random fluctuations only effect it slightly since the surrounding points matter too) and it is, I believe, a healthier way to think of weight loss. \*Today matters, because it could push my average over, but it’s not the focus. _Most Beeminded goals are behaviour (read more of this, eat less of that, run more, lift more, smoke less, whatever); weight loss is not a behaviour, it’s an outcome of behaviour. Outcomes are less predictable and less in our direct control than behaviour, and I think a system that measures an outcome too tightly is a little off. Behaviour should be measured tightly; an outcome should be measure more loosely, and thought of as being representative of behaviour that needs to be altered._ ("Hmm… my average is trending upwards; perhaps 12 twinkies a day is too many… I’m going to create an “eat fewer twinkies goal”) The solution I will use to adapt to this will be one that I think you guys… will not love, to say the least, but this post is stupid-long already, so I’ll save that for another time. Ess [1] Note that I’m not saying that you should get rid of multiple weigh-ins; I think they’re useful for other reasons. On Friday, August 2, 2013 11:02:36 AM UTC-4, Jill Renaud wrote: > Philip, > > I really like your response here. I also agree with your opinion that a > razor thin road will lead to more derailments with regards to weight loss > roads. That said, I think the auto-widening feature can be detrimental to > weight loss. I’ve found that having a fixed width (relatively wide) road > has been working wonders for me. When the road was variable width I’d play > games that were ultimately bad for my progress. If I was on the right side > of the road one day, I’d go hog wild and pig out to keep my road wide. > Obviously going hog wild and pigging out is not beneficial for weight > loss. Since January I’ve had a my weight +/- 3 lbs road which seems to > accommodate my womanly fluctuations and also water retention due to > medicines that I take. > > I also agree that taking the lowest weight of the day is beneficial > because the very first weight of the morning isn’t always the lowest. I’m > not really sure what the optimal solution is with regards to weight loss > goals for everyone, but I think after 5 years of beeminding/kibotzing I’ve > figured out what works for me. > > -Jill > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 10:43 AM, pjh \<[phi...@hellyer.net](mailto:phi...@hellyer.net) \\>wrote: > > > One of the benefits of Beeminder graphs is the predictability that they > > bring to my life. At the extreme, I react to beemergency days and JFDI the > > task. At its best, I will notice that my gym-going graph will be in the > > red within 3 days, so I plan a gym morning into my schedule. Being able to > > predict when the emergency days are going to hit, and take steps to make my > > life less reactive, is one of the intangible benefits of Beeminder.[1] > > > > Weight graphs are not predictable in the same way. I can see my gym-going > > emergency day coming, but I won’t know that it’s a weight beemergency until > > I stand on the scale in the morning. [2] > > > > This morning was such a day, and happily I had already intended to go to > > the gym. (Turns out that it’s possible to get back on the road without > > resorting to Danny’s dozen weigh-ins. 🙂 My first weigh-in was well into > > the red. I had a bit of breakfast, ran to the gym, swam, stretched, and > > ran back, adequately hydrated throughout. And weighed-in at 0.3kg lighter. > > Sufficient to get me back on the road & safely achieved.) > > > > We used to only allow one weigh-in each day, and I think it caused people > > to dread standing on the scale. So they’d not weigh in daily, which meant > > they’d lose sight of their progress (or regress), which meant they’d be > > more likely to derail, etc. That was ‘fixed’ by the road-widening > > guarantee. So Danny’s absolutely right that we’ve piled one hack on top of > > another, and that it’s high time we identify & resolve the underlying > > problem. > > > > (@Katherine: You can, by emailing support, have us change how multiple > > weigh-ins are counted or aggregated. I think “first of the day” is still an > > option.) > > > > I don’t have a problem with doing my daily weigh-in, so the argument that > > I’ll still step through the colours on my way to derailing doesn’t apply to > > me. (And wouldn’t occur if presumptive-pessimism is implemented.) I think > > that the turquoise swath itself might be vestigial; it used to clearly show > > the difference between actual data slope and road slope. With > > auto-re-railment, most of my data points follow the road, and the turquoise > > swath does the same. (I’ve turned the swath back on for a few goals to see > > whether it’s more interesting than I remember.) > > > > I’ve always liked that we treat different types of graph differently. > > Weight loss graphs are for absolute measures that vary, but where the goal > > is a downward trend. This is substantively different from counting units > > of progress that increase monotonically. > > > > It seems that a razor-thin road will force me into exactly the situation > > that Danny wants to avoid. My reality will be governed by an indiscernible > > and invisible line somewhere below the road. I predict an increase in > > derailments.[3] > > > > The occasional derailment on the path to a goal is fine, provided that I > > think I’ve made good progress that wouldn’t have occurred without > > Beeminder. Seemingly spurious beyond-my-control derailments don’t fall in > > that category. Double plus bad, on so many levels. > > > > Having said all of that: > > > > It’s possible that a presumptively-pessimistic view of safe-days will be > > enough to let me see where I really am with respect to the road edge. > > > > It certainly would change the games that I can play with myself; instead > > of paying slightly more attention to my diet when I’m orange, that will > > need to become a rule like ‘if today I’m heavier than yesterday’ or ‘if > > fewer than 2 safe days’ or something less obviously derived from the graph > > and its colouring. > > > > But I’m still doubtful that this is for the best, and still welcome being > > mistaken. > > > > Philip > > > > [1] My life seems to be in a continual state of imbalance. If I’m on top > > of my physical health, my work suffers. If I’m on top of conference > > speaking, my other commitments suffer. If I’m caught up on email, > > something else suffers. And so on. One of the roles that Beeminder plays > > for me is to ensure that I keep all the important plates spinning a little, > > regardless of where my impetuous focus currently lies. > > > > [2] For this same reason, auto-data goals need to do their first fetch > > before I check my graphs in the morning. Can’t be finding out part-way > > through my day that something is going to derail at midnight. (I suppose > > that I could force this behaviour by setting a stupidly early morning > > panic-email time, but it should be standard.) > > > > [3] Worse, unexpected derailments will encourage more conservative roads, > > which are thinner in the new regime, which will cause more derailments, > > etc. Which screws with the benefit of beeminding. (And is reminiscent of > > the dreaded-weigh-in loop that lead us to auto-widening roads in the first > > place…) > > > > On Friday, August 2, 2013 2:47:40 PM UTC+1, Katherine Baxter wrote: > > > > > I just joined this list, and I’ll probably have something more > > > substantial to say about weight goals later after reading more of the > > > discussion, but I wanted to reply now because I object pretty strongly to > > > the idea of letting you weigh in multiple times in one day and taking the > > > lowest value. I had no idea (and now wish I still didn’t know) it worked > > > that way now. I always weigh myself only once, first thing in the morning. > > > Later in the day when I’m hydrated and fed, I am ~5lbs heavier. That’s 3.5% > > > of my weight for me - it would be more for a larger person. If I’m off my > > > road when I first weigh in in the morning, I don’t think there’s anything > > > healthy I can do to get back on later in the day, and I definitely don’t > > > want to incentivize myself to do unhealthy things just to stay on my road. > > > > > > I’m adding fine print to my weight goal that says I am only allowed to > > > record the first weight I measure on a particular day. > > > > > > Why on earth does it work this way? > > > > > > On Friday, July 26, 2013 9:50:52 PM UTC-4, Daniel Reeves wrote: > > > > > > > This is madness: [The Magical Widening Yellow Brick Road | Beeminder Blog](http://blog.beeminder.com/roadwidth) > > > > > > > > At the time we kind of painted ourselves into that corner and didn’t > > > > see a way out. We thought we needed auto-widening to solve a > > > > psychological problem with weight loss (or more generally, akrasia > > > > with respect to a noisy metric) where you try to skate too close to > > > > the edge and sooner or later get burned by a random fluctuation. > > > > > > > > Auto-widening was a (too) clever solution given the constraints we > > > > started with: your first weigh-in in the morning is your official > > > > weight, and you don’t get to peek at what it’s going to be before > > > > reporting it. In that universe, you need guidance from Beeminder on > > > > when to panic. The answer was, if you’re in the wrong lane today then > > > > you have to panic because you might be doomed when you step on the > > > > scale in the morning. Auto-widening meant it was time to panic if and > > > > only if you found yourself in the wrong lane, which is the important > > > > bit of psychology. There has to be a way to save up the panic and hit > > > > you with it all at once so that you actually do panic. (No > > > > wolf-crying.) Auto-widening does that. If you’re in the right lane > > > > then you don’t have to panic yet. You can’t lose tomorrow. If you’re > > > > in the wrong lane, you can lose tomorrow. > > > > > > > > (Also it sounds really good – “Beeminder uses fancy maths to > > > > automatically adapt to random fluctuation in your weight” – which > > > > will make this hard to throw away!) > > > > > > > > But all the strategery is different in the current universe. Beeminder > > > > takes the min weight of the day, and you can keep weighing in all day > > > > long, till midnight. So now there’s no true cause for panic unless > > > > you’re actually in the red, in which case you have to claw your way > > > > back on the road by the end of the day. For a true akratic doing the > > > > absolute bare minimum to cling to the edge of their road, > > > > auto-widening is now meaningless. If I’m not in the red I just don’t > > > > give a shit. > > > > > > > > A huge amount of cruft and confusion and corner cases (not to mention > > > > at least one long-standing bug) in Beeminder will go away when we drop > > > > auto-widening. > > > > > > > > Yay for (eventual) progress! And thanks so much to everyone on this > > > > list who helped us hash this out! (And the hashing can continue, of > > > > course.) > > > > > > > > Technical addendum: > > > > > > > > 1. We’ll keep the first-week leniency: Your weight loss road starts at > > > > the max weigh-in from your first week of data. > > > > > > > > 2. The can’t-lose-tomorrow guarantee will still obtain, in a sense, > > > > but only applies for flatlining [1]. The width of each lane of the > > > > road is always equal to the current daily rate of the road [2]. So > > > > being just into the green today and reporting nothing means blue > > > > tomorrow, orange the next day, and red the day after that. > > > > > > > > [1] [http://blog.beeminder.com/\*\*glossary/#flatline](http://blog.beeminder.com/**glossary/#flatline)[http://blog.beeminder.com/glossary/#flatline](http://blog.beeminder.com/glossary/#flatline) > > > > > > > > [2] Confusing exception: flat spots have road width equal to max of > > > > the width of the preceding and subsequent segments. > > > > > > > > – > > > > [http://dreev.es](http://dreev.es) – search://“Daniel Reeves” > > > > Goal tracking + Commitment contracts == [http://beeminder.com](http://beeminder.com) > > > > > > – > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > > “Akratics Anonymous” group. > > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > > > email to [akratics+u...@googlegroups.com](mailto:akratics+u...@googlegroups.com) \. > > > For more options, visit [https://groups.google.com/groups/opt\_out](https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out). ---
**Author:** ![Katherine\_Baxter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/839c29/32.png) [@Katherine\_Baxter](https://forum.beeminder.com/u/Katherine_Baxter)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2013, 3:06pm UTC](https://forum.beeminder.com/t/death-to-auto-widening-yellow-brick-roads/1440/11 "2013-08-06T15:06:13Z")
Wow, yes, this. If weight roads were based on the moving average instead of the individual data points, it would resolve my concerns and make me a very happy bee. I love that Beeminder shows a moving average a la Hacker Diet, but I think it misses the point a little bit. Hacker Diet is all about focusing on the trend and pretty much ignoring the individual data points. [Why Weigh (Daily)? | Beeminder Blog](http://blog.beeminder.com/weighly/) seems to me like it’s saying “Weigh every day, focus on the trend, and ignore the individual data points. Oh, but your goals are centered entirely around the individual data points, so actually just focus on those.” Maybe I should track data points and calculate a moving average in a separate system, and then just beemind the calculated average. On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 4:22 AM, Essentiae [essentiae@gmail.com](mailto:essentiae@gmail.com) wrote: > TLDR: I’ve bolded the parts that I think matter; so that you don’t have to > read so much of my yammer to get to my points. > > I’m a fan of the auto-widening road, but I think there might be another way > to accommodate my concerns about losing it. The problem is that it uses > custom goal settings, to which most users won’t have access. Can I recommend > that if you get rid of auto-widening roads, you make some of the custom > features available for the “lose/gain weight” type of goals? (Maybe just one > of these could be allowed per user so it’s not a loophole around not having > access to custom goals if you’re not a subscriber.) > > Today is an example case of what worries me. I’ve recently deleted my “max > safe days” on most of my goals (for unrelated reasons). Thank goodness, > because today when I weighed in, I weighed in at 2.2 lbs less than > yesterday. When I got on the scale and saw that, I didn’t think “Hmm, I > wonder if I’m dehydrated” or “I wonder if this is closer to my real weight > (seeing as the most recent point were a little higher than the “group” of > nearby points) and I’m balancing out again”. Instead, I thought “Shit! > That’s going to screw up my graph” This is not the right response to have > elicited by a low weigh-in. (I wasn’t sure when exactly auto-widening would > die, or if it perhaps already has, so I wasn’t sure if I’d be affected yet.) > > See, if I had kept my max-safe-days (which I want to use to keep myself > pushing forward rather than coasting if/when I have particularly good > months) then I’d be in trouble because it would have tightened my road and I > would derail tomorrow or the next day when a balanced weigh-in occurs again. > This is solved, probably, by custom road width and using “edgy” (“put the > initial point on the road edge instead of centerline”) so that if the > max-safe-days kicks in the new point will (I assume) be at the bottom of the > road so that it won’t shove my road so far down that I’m screwed, and it > also won’t require me to have a road width 2x the necessary size. > > This also would help what Jill has called “womanly fluctuations” as well as > medical situations. I have a thing that makes it such that some days I weigh > much more than my “weight”, as well, and so having the ability to set my own > road width could be really helpful in allowing me to have a road that is as > steep as I want and also as wide as I want. (Something I can do with a > custom goal, but new customers can’t.) > > All of this still doesn’t really fix the one thing that I think is more > important, though. I think the focus on the “daily” part is kind of off. The > idea that if we’re over the line one day we can try to claw our ways back > down that day to correct it is kind of silly (and seems an unhealthy way to > look at weight loss). [1] If I’ve reached the point that I’m over the line, > I may have already lost (unless it was a weird, random upward fluctuation). > Today’s datapoint should matter less in weight loss goals than the trend. > Today should matter only in so far as it’s a piece of that trend. I would > greatly prefer having a road that is calibrated to derail according to an > average. I think that’s way more stable a measurement for weight loss > datapoints (because random fluctuations only effect it slightly since the > surrounding points matter too) and it is, I believe, a healthier way to > think of weight loss. Today matters, because it could push my average over, > but it’s not the focus. Most Beeminded goals are behaviour (read more of > this, eat less of that, run more, lift more, smoke less, whatever); weight > loss is not a behaviour, it’s an outcome of behaviour. Outcomes are less > predictable and less in our direct control than behaviour, and I think a > system that measures an outcome too tightly is a little off. Behaviour > should be measured tightly; an outcome should be measure more loosely, and > thought of as being representative of behaviour that needs to be altered. > ("Hmm… my average is trending upwards; perhaps 12 twinkies a day is too > many… I’m going to create an “eat fewer twinkies goal”) > > The solution I will use to adapt to this will be one that I think you > guys… will not love, to say the least, but this post is stupid-long > already, so I’ll save that for another time. > > Ess > > [1] Note that I’m not saying that you should get rid of multiple weigh-ins; > I think they’re useful for other reasons. > > On Friday, August 2, 2013 11:02:36 AM UTC-4, Jill Renaud wrote: > > > Philip, > > > > I really like your response here. I also agree with your opinion that a > > razor thin road will lead to more derailments with regards to weight loss > > roads. That said, I think the auto-widening feature can be detrimental to > > weight loss. I’ve found that having a fixed width (relatively wide) road > > has been working wonders for me. When the road was variable width I’d play > > games that were ultimately bad for my progress. If I was on the right side > > of the road one day, I’d go hog wild and pig out to keep my road wide. > > Obviously going hog wild and pigging out is not beneficial for weight loss. > > Since January I’ve had a my weight +/- 3 lbs road which seems to accommodate > > my womanly fluctuations and also water retention due to medicines that I > > take. > > > > I also agree that taking the lowest weight of the day is beneficial > > because the very first weight of the morning isn’t always the lowest. I’m > > not really sure what the optimal solution is with regards to weight loss > > goals for everyone, but I think after 5 years of beeminding/kibotzing I’ve > > figured out what works for me. > > > > -Jill > > > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 10:43 AM, pjh [phi...@hellyer.net](mailto:phi...@hellyer.net) wrote: > > > > > One of the benefits of Beeminder graphs is the predictability that they > > > bring to my life. At the extreme, I react to beemergency days and JFDI the > > > task. At its best, I will notice that my gym-going graph will be in the red > > > within 3 days, so I plan a gym morning into my schedule. Being able to > > > predict when the emergency days are going to hit, and take steps to make my > > > life less reactive, is one of the intangible benefits of Beeminder.[1] > > > > > > Weight graphs are not predictable in the same way. I can see my gym-going > > > emergency day coming, but I won’t know that it’s a weight beemergency until > > > I stand on the scale in the morning. [2] > > > > > > This morning was such a day, and happily I had already intended to go to > > > the gym. (Turns out that it’s possible to get back on the road without > > > resorting to Danny’s dozen weigh-ins. 🙂 My first weigh-in was well into > > > the red. I had a bit of breakfast, ran to the gym, swam, stretched, and ran > > > back, adequately hydrated throughout. And weighed-in at 0.3kg lighter. > > > Sufficient to get me back on the road & safely achieved.) > > > > > > We used to only allow one weigh-in each day, and I think it caused people > > > to dread standing on the scale. So they’d not weigh in daily, which meant > > > they’d lose sight of their progress (or regress), which meant they’d be more > > > likely to derail, etc. That was ‘fixed’ by the road-widening guarantee. So > > > Danny’s absolutely right that we’ve piled one hack on top of another, and > > > that it’s high time we identify & resolve the underlying problem. > > > > > > (@Katherine: You can, by emailing support, have us change how multiple > > > weigh-ins are counted or aggregated. I think “first of the day” is still an > > > option.) > > > > > > I don’t have a problem with doing my daily weigh-in, so the argument that > > > I’ll still step through the colours on my way to derailing doesn’t apply to > > > me. (And wouldn’t occur if presumptive-pessimism is implemented.) I think > > > that the turquoise swath itself might be vestigial; it used to clearly show > > > the difference between actual data slope and road slope. With > > > auto-re-railment, most of my data points follow the road, and the turquoise > > > swath does the same. (I’ve turned the swath back on for a few goals to see > > > whether it’s more interesting than I remember.) > > > > > > I’ve always liked that we treat different types of graph differently. > > > Weight loss graphs are for absolute measures that vary, but where the goal > > > is a downward trend. This is substantively different from counting units > > > of progress that increase monotonically. > > > > > > It seems that a razor-thin road will force me into exactly the situation > > > that Danny wants to avoid. My reality will be governed by an indiscernible > > > and invisible line somewhere below the road. I predict an increase in > > > derailments.[3] > > > > > > The occasional derailment on the path to a goal is fine, provided that I > > > think I’ve made good progress that wouldn’t have occurred without Beeminder. > > > Seemingly spurious beyond-my-control derailments don’t fall in that > > > category. Double plus bad, on so many levels. > > > > > > Having said all of that: > > > > > > It’s possible that a presumptively-pessimistic view of safe-days will be > > > enough to let me see where I really am with respect to the road edge. > > > > > > It certainly would change the games that I can play with myself; instead > > > of paying slightly more attention to my diet when I’m orange, that will need > > > to become a rule like ‘if today I’m heavier than yesterday’ or ‘if fewer > > > than 2 safe days’ or something less obviously derived from the graph and its > > > colouring. > > > > > > But I’m still doubtful that this is for the best, and still welcome being > > > mistaken. > > > > > > Philip > > > > > > [1] My life seems to be in a continual state of imbalance. If I’m on top > > > of my physical health, my work suffers. If I’m on top of conference > > > speaking, my other commitments suffer. If I’m caught up on email, something > > > else suffers. And so on. One of the roles that Beeminder plays for me is > > > to ensure that I keep all the important plates spinning a little, regardless > > > of where my impetuous focus currently lies. > > > > > > [2] For this same reason, auto-data goals need to do their first fetch > > > before I check my graphs in the morning. Can’t be finding out part-way > > > through my day that something is going to derail at midnight. (I suppose > > > that I could force this behaviour by setting a stupidly early morning > > > panic-email time, but it should be standard.) > > > > > > [3] Worse, unexpected derailments will encourage more conservative roads, > > > which are thinner in the new regime, which will cause more derailments, etc. > > > Which screws with the benefit of beeminding. (And is reminiscent of the > > > dreaded-weigh-in loop that lead us to auto-widening roads in the first > > > place…) > > > > > > On Friday, August 2, 2013 2:47:40 PM UTC+1, Katherine Baxter wrote: > > > > > > > I just joined this list, and I’ll probably have something more > > > > substantial to say about weight goals later after reading more of the > > > > discussion, but I wanted to reply now because I object pretty strongly to > > > > the idea of letting you weigh in multiple times in one day and taking the > > > > lowest value. I had no idea (and now wish I still didn’t know) it worked > > > > that way now. I always weigh myself only once, first thing in the morning. > > > > Later in the day when I’m hydrated and fed, I am ~5lbs heavier. That’s 3.5% > > > > of my weight for me - it would be more for a larger person. If I’m off my > > > > road when I first weigh in in the morning, I don’t think there’s anything > > > > healthy I can do to get back on later in the day, and I definitely don’t > > > > want to incentivize myself to do unhealthy things just to stay on my road. > > > > > > > > I’m adding fine print to my weight goal that says I am only allowed to > > > > record the first weight I measure on a particular day. > > > > > > > > Why on earth does it work this way? > > > > > > > > On Friday, July 26, 2013 9:50:52 PM UTC-4, Daniel Reeves wrote: > > > > > > > > > This is madness: [The Magical Widening Yellow Brick Road | Beeminder Blog](http://blog.beeminder.com/roadwidth) > > > > > > > > > > At the time we kind of painted ourselves into that corner and didn’t > > > > > see a way out. We thought we needed auto-widening to solve a > > > > > psychological problem with weight loss (or more generally, akrasia > > > > > with respect to a noisy metric) where you try to skate too close to > > > > > the edge and sooner or later get burned by a random fluctuation. > > > > > > > > > > Auto-widening was a (too) clever solution given the constraints we > > > > > started with: your first weigh-in in the morning is your official > > > > > weight, and you don’t get to peek at what it’s going to be before > > > > > reporting it. In that universe, you need guidance from Beeminder on > > > > > when to panic. The answer was, if you’re in the wrong lane today then > > > > > you have to panic because you might be doomed when you step on the > > > > > scale in the morning. Auto-widening meant it was time to panic if and > > > > > only if you found yourself in the wrong lane, which is the important > > > > > bit of psychology. There has to be a way to save up the panic and hit > > > > > you with it all at once so that you actually do panic. (No > > > > > wolf-crying.) Auto-widening does that. If you’re in the right lane > > > > > then you don’t have to panic yet. You can’t lose tomorrow. If you’re > > > > > in the wrong lane, you can lose tomorrow. > > > > > > > > > > (Also it sounds really good – “Beeminder uses fancy maths to > > > > > automatically adapt to random fluctuation in your weight” – which > > > > > will make this hard to throw away!) > > > > > > > > > > But all the strategery is different in the current universe. Beeminder > > > > > takes the min weight of the day, and you can keep weighing in all day > > > > > long, till midnight. So now there’s no true cause for panic unless > > > > > you’re actually in the red, in which case you have to claw your way > > > > > back on the road by the end of the day. For a true akratic doing the > > > > > absolute bare minimum to cling to the edge of their road, > > > > > auto-widening is now meaningless. If I’m not in the red I just don’t > > > > > give a shit. > > > > > > > > > > A huge amount of cruft and confusion and corner cases (not to mention > > > > > at least one long-standing bug) in Beeminder will go away when we drop > > > > > auto-widening. > > > > > > > > > > Yay for (eventual) progress! And thanks so much to everyone on this > > > > > list who helped us hash this out! (And the hashing can continue, of > > > > > course.) > > > > > > > > > > Technical addendum: > > > > > > > > > > 1. We’ll keep the first-week leniency: Your weight loss road starts at > > > > > the max weigh-in from your first week of data. > > > > > > > > > > 2. The can’t-lose-tomorrow guarantee will still obtain, in a sense, > > > > > but only applies for flatlining [1]. The width of each lane of the > > > > > road is always equal to the current daily rate of the road [2]. So > > > > > being just into the green today and reporting nothing means blue > > > > > tomorrow, orange the next day, and red the day after that. > > > > > > > > > > [1] [Beeminder Glossary | Beeminder Blog](http://blog.beeminder.com/glossary/#flatline) > > > > > > > > > > [2] Confusing exception: flat spots have road width equal to max of > > > > > the width of the preceding and subsequent segments. > > > > > > > > > > – > > > > > [http://dreev.es](http://dreev.es) – search://“Daniel Reeves” > > > > > Goal tracking + Commitment contracts == [http://beeminder.com](http://beeminder.com) > > > > > > – > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > > “Akratics Anonymous” group. > > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > > > email to [akratics+u...@googlegroups.com](mailto:akratics+u...@googlegroups.com). > > > For more options, visit [https://groups.google.com/groups/opt\_out](https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out). > > – > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > “Akratics Anonymous” group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [akratics+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com](mailto:akratics+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com). > For more options, visit [https://groups.google.com/groups/opt\_out](https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out). ---
**Author:** ![Reto\_Stamm](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.beeminder.com/reto_stamm/32/693_2.png) [@Reto\_Stamm](https://forum.beeminder.com/u/Reto_Stamm)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2013, 3:07pm UTC](https://forum.beeminder.com/t/death-to-auto-widening-yellow-brick-roads/1440/12 "2013-08-06T15:07:15Z")
I think the key point here is this: _Behaviour should be measured tightly; an outcome should be measure more loosely, and thought of as being representative of behaviour that needs to be altered._ \* \* I’ve stopped measuring long term outcomes, and only measure things I can automatically measure and realistically fix. Ideally, those are very granular and loophole free. R On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 4:22 AM, Essentiae [essentiae@gmail.com](mailto:essentiae@gmail.com) wrote: > TLDR: I’ve bolded the parts that I think matter; so that you don’t have to > read so much of my yammer to get to my points. > > I’m a fan of the auto-widening road, but I think there might be another > way to accommodate my concerns about losing it. The problem is that it uses > custom goal settings, to which most users won’t have access. Can I > recommend that _if you get rid of auto-widening roads, you make some of > the custom features available for the “lose/gain weight” type of goals_? > (Maybe just one of these could be allowed per user so it’s not a loophole > around not having access to custom goals if you’re not a subscriber.) > > Today is an example case of what worries me. I’ve recently deleted my > “max safe days” on most of my goals (for unrelated reasons). Thank > goodness, because _today when I weighed in, I weighed in at 2.2 lbs less > than yesterday_. When I got on the scale and saw that, I didn’t think > “Hmm, I wonder if I’m dehydrated” or “I wonder if this is closer to my real > weight (seeing as the most recent point were a little higher than the > “group” of nearby points) and I’m balancing out again”. Instead,\* I > thought “Shit! That’s going to screw up my graph” This is not the right > response to have elicited by a low weigh-in.\* (I wasn’t sure when exactly > auto-widening would die, or if it perhaps already has, so I wasn’t sure if > I’d be affected yet.) > > See, _if I had kept my max-safe-days_ (which I want to use to keep myself > pushing forward rather than coasting if/when I have particularly good > months) then _I’d be in trouble because it would have tightened my road > and I would derail tomorrow or the next day when a balanced weigh-in occurs > again._ _This is solved, probably, by custom road width and using “edgy”_(“put the initial point on the road edge instead of centerline”) so that if > the max-safe-days kicks in the new point will (I assume) be at the bottom > of the road so that it won’t shove my road so far down that I’m screwed, > and it also won’t require me to have a road width 2x the necessary size. > > This also would help what Jill has called “womanly fluctuations” as well > as medical situations. I have a thing that makes it such that some days I > weigh much more than my “weight”, as well, and so having the ability to set > my own road width could be really helpful in allowing me to have a road > that is as steep as I want and also as wide as I want. _(Something I can > do with a custom goal, but new customers can’t.)_ > > All of this still doesn’t really fix the one thing that I think is more > important, though. I think the focus on the “daily” part is kind of off. _The > idea that if we’re over the line one day we can try to claw our ways back > down that day to correct it is kind of silly (and seems an unhealthy way to > look at weight loss)._ [1] If I’ve reached the point that I’m over the > line, I may have already lost (unless it was a weird, random upward > fluctuation). \*Today’s datapoint should matter less in weight loss goals > than the trend. Today should matter only in so far as it’s a piece of that > trend. I would greatly prefer having a road that is calibrated to derail > according to an average. I think that’s way more stable a measurement for > weight loss datapoints (because random fluctuations only effect it slightly > since the surrounding points matter too) and it is, I believe, a healthier > way to think of weight loss. \*Today matters, because it could push my > average over, but it’s not the focus. _Most Beeminded goals are behaviour > (read more of this, eat less of that, run more, lift more, smoke less, > whatever); weight loss is not a behaviour, it’s an outcome of behaviour. > Outcomes are less predictable and less in our direct control than > behaviour, and I think a system that measures an outcome too tightly is a > little off. Behaviour should be measured tightly; an outcome should be > measure more loosely, and thought of as being representative of behaviour > that needs to be altered._ ("Hmm… my average is trending upwards; > perhaps 12 twinkies a day is too many… I’m going to create an “eat fewer > twinkies goal”) > > The solution I will use to adapt to this will be one that I think you > guys… will not love, to say the least, but this post is stupid-long > already, so I’ll save that for another time. > > Ess > > [1] Note that I’m not saying that you should get rid of multiple > weigh-ins; I think they’re useful for other reasons. > > On Friday, August 2, 2013 11:02:36 AM UTC-4, Jill Renaud wrote: > > > Philip, > > > > I really like your response here. I also agree with your opinion that a > > razor thin road will lead to more derailments with regards to weight loss > > roads. That said, I think the auto-widening feature can be detrimental to > > weight loss. I’ve found that having a fixed width (relatively wide) road > > has been working wonders for me. When the road was variable width I’d play > > games that were ultimately bad for my progress. If I was on the right side > > of the road one day, I’d go hog wild and pig out to keep my road wide. > > Obviously going hog wild and pigging out is not beneficial for weight > > loss. Since January I’ve had a my weight +/- 3 lbs road which seems to > > accommodate my womanly fluctuations and also water retention due to > > medicines that I take. > > > > I also agree that taking the lowest weight of the day is beneficial > > because the very first weight of the morning isn’t always the lowest. I’m > > not really sure what the optimal solution is with regards to weight loss > > goals for everyone, but I think after 5 years of beeminding/kibotzing I’ve > > figured out what works for me. > > > > -Jill > > > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 10:43 AM, pjh [phi...@hellyer.net](mailto:phi...@hellyer.net) wrote: > > > > > One of the benefits of Beeminder graphs is the predictability that they > > > bring to my life. At the extreme, I react to beemergency days and JFDI the > > > task. At its best, I will notice that my gym-going graph will be in the > > > red within 3 days, so I plan a gym morning into my schedule. Being able to > > > predict when the emergency days are going to hit, and take steps to make my > > > life less reactive, is one of the intangible benefits of Beeminder.[1] > > > > > > Weight graphs are not predictable in the same way. I can see my > > > gym-going emergency day coming, but I won’t know that it’s a weight > > > beemergency until I stand on the scale in the morning. [2] > > > > > > This morning was such a day, and happily I had already intended to go to > > > the gym. (Turns out that it’s possible to get back on the road without > > > resorting to Danny’s dozen weigh-ins. 🙂 My first weigh-in was well into > > > the red. I had a bit of breakfast, ran to the gym, swam, stretched, and > > > ran back, adequately hydrated throughout. And weighed-in at 0.3kg lighter. > > > Sufficient to get me back on the road & safely achieved.) > > > > > > We used to only allow one weigh-in each day, and I think it caused > > > people to dread standing on the scale. So they’d not weigh in daily, which > > > meant they’d lose sight of their progress (or regress), which meant they’d > > > be more likely to derail, etc. That was ‘fixed’ by the road-widening > > > guarantee. So Danny’s absolutely right that we’ve piled one hack on top of > > > another, and that it’s high time we identify & resolve the underlying > > > problem. > > > > > > (@Katherine: You can, by emailing support, have us change how multiple > > > weigh-ins are counted or aggregated. I think “first of the day” is still an > > > option.) > > > > > > I don’t have a problem with doing my daily weigh-in, so the argument > > > that I’ll still step through the colours on my way to derailing doesn’t > > > apply to me. (And wouldn’t occur if presumptive-pessimism is implemented.) > > > I think that the turquoise swath itself might be vestigial; it used to > > > clearly show the difference between actual data slope and road slope. With > > > auto-re-railment, most of my data points follow the road, and the turquoise > > > swath does the same. (I’ve turned the swath back on for a few goals to see > > > whether it’s more interesting than I remember.) > > > > > > I’ve always liked that we treat different types of graph differently. > > > Weight loss graphs are for absolute measures that vary, but where the goal > > > is a downward trend. This is substantively different from counting units > > > of progress that increase monotonically. > > > > > > It seems that a razor-thin road will force me into exactly the situation > > > that Danny wants to avoid. My reality will be governed by an indiscernible > > > and invisible line somewhere below the road. I predict an increase in > > > derailments.[3] > > > > > > The occasional derailment on the path to a goal is fine, provided that I > > > think I’ve made good progress that wouldn’t have occurred without > > > Beeminder. Seemingly spurious beyond-my-control derailments don’t fall in > > > that category. Double plus bad, on so many levels. > > > > > > Having said all of that: > > > > > > It’s possible that a presumptively-pessimistic view of safe-days will be > > > enough to let me see where I really am with respect to the road edge. > > > > > > It certainly would change the games that I can play with myself; instead > > > of paying slightly more attention to my diet when I’m orange, that will > > > need to become a rule like ‘if today I’m heavier than yesterday’ or ‘if > > > fewer than 2 safe days’ or something less obviously derived from the graph > > > and its colouring. > > > > > > But I’m still doubtful that this is for the best, and still welcome > > > being mistaken. > > > > > > Philip > > > > > > [1] My life seems to be in a continual state of imbalance. If I’m on > > > top of my physical health, my work suffers. If I’m on top of conference > > > speaking, my other commitments suffer. If I’m caught up on email, > > > something else suffers. And so on. One of the roles that Beeminder plays > > > for me is to ensure that I keep all the important plates spinning a little, > > > regardless of where my impetuous focus currently lies. > > > > > > [2] For this same reason, auto-data goals need to do their first fetch > > > before I check my graphs in the morning. Can’t be finding out part-way > > > through my day that something is going to derail at midnight. (I suppose > > > that I could force this behaviour by setting a stupidly early morning > > > panic-email time, but it should be standard.) > > > > > > [3] Worse, unexpected derailments will encourage more conservative > > > roads, which are thinner in the new regime, which will cause more > > > derailments, etc. Which screws with the benefit of beeminding. (And is > > > reminiscent of the dreaded-weigh-in loop that lead us to auto-widening > > > roads in the first place…) > > > > > > On Friday, August 2, 2013 2:47:40 PM UTC+1, Katherine Baxter wrote: > > > > > > > I just joined this list, and I’ll probably have something more > > > > substantial to say about weight goals later after reading more of the > > > > discussion, but I wanted to reply now because I object pretty strongly to > > > > the idea of letting you weigh in multiple times in one day and taking the > > > > lowest value. I had no idea (and now wish I still didn’t know) it worked > > > > that way now. I always weigh myself only once, first thing in the morning. > > > > Later in the day when I’m hydrated and fed, I am ~5lbs heavier. That’s 3.5% > > > > of my weight for me - it would be more for a larger person. If I’m off my > > > > road when I first weigh in in the morning, I don’t think there’s anything > > > > healthy I can do to get back on later in the day, and I definitely don’t > > > > want to incentivize myself to do unhealthy things just to stay on my road. > > > > > > > > I’m adding fine print to my weight goal that says I am only allowed to > > > > record the first weight I measure on a particular day. > > > > > > > > Why on earth does it work this way? > > > > > > > > On Friday, July 26, 2013 9:50:52 PM UTC-4, Daniel Reeves wrote: > > > > > > > > > This is madness: [The Magical Widening Yellow Brick Road | Beeminder Blog](http://blog.beeminder.com/roadwidth) > > > > > > > > > > At the time we kind of painted ourselves into that corner and didn’t > > > > > see a way out. We thought we needed auto-widening to solve a > > > > > psychological problem with weight loss (or more generally, akrasia > > > > > with respect to a noisy metric) where you try to skate too close to > > > > > the edge and sooner or later get burned by a random fluctuation. > > > > > > > > > > Auto-widening was a (too) clever solution given the constraints we > > > > > started with: your first weigh-in in the morning is your official > > > > > weight, and you don’t get to peek at what it’s going to be before > > > > > reporting it. In that universe, you need guidance from Beeminder on > > > > > when to panic. The answer was, if you’re in the wrong lane today then > > > > > you have to panic because you might be doomed when you step on the > > > > > scale in the morning. Auto-widening meant it was time to panic if and > > > > > only if you found yourself in the wrong lane, which is the important > > > > > bit of psychology. There has to be a way to save up the panic and hit > > > > > you with it all at once so that you actually do panic. (No > > > > > wolf-crying.) Auto-widening does that. If you’re in the right lane > > > > > then you don’t have to panic yet. You can’t lose tomorrow. If you’re > > > > > in the wrong lane, you can lose tomorrow. > > > > > > > > > > (Also it sounds really good – “Beeminder uses fancy maths to > > > > > automatically adapt to random fluctuation in your weight” – which > > > > > will make this hard to throw away!) > > > > > > > > > > But all the strategery is different in the current universe. Beeminder > > > > > takes the min weight of the day, and you can keep weighing in all day > > > > > long, till midnight. So now there’s no true cause for panic unless > > > > > you’re actually in the red, in which case you have to claw your way > > > > > back on the road by the end of the day. For a true akratic doing the > > > > > absolute bare minimum to cling to the edge of their road, > > > > > auto-widening is now meaningless. If I’m not in the red I just don’t > > > > > give a shit. > > > > > > > > > > A huge amount of cruft and confusion and corner cases (not to mention > > > > > at least one long-standing bug) in Beeminder will go away when we drop > > > > > auto-widening. > > > > > > > > > > Yay for (eventual) progress! And thanks so much to everyone on this > > > > > list who helped us hash this out! (And the hashing can continue, of > > > > > course.) > > > > > > > > > > Technical addendum: > > > > > > > > > > 1. We’ll keep the first-week leniency: Your weight loss road starts at > > > > > the max weigh-in from your first week of data. > > > > > > > > > > 2. The can’t-lose-tomorrow guarantee will still obtain, in a sense, > > > > > but only applies for flatlining [1]. The width of each lane of the > > > > > road is always equal to the current daily rate of the road [2]. So > > > > > being just into the green today and reporting nothing means blue > > > > > tomorrow, orange the next day, and red the day after that. > > > > > > > > > > [1] [http://blog.beeminder.com/\*\*glos\*\*sary/#flatline](http://blog.beeminder.com/ **glos** sary/#flatline)[http://blog.beeminder.com/glossary/#flatline](http://blog.beeminder.com/glossary/#flatline) > > > > > > > > > > [2] Confusing exception: flat spots have road width equal to max of > > > > > the width of the preceding and subsequent segments. > > > > > > > > > > – > > > > > [http://dreev.es](http://dreev.es) – search://“Daniel Reeves” > > > > > Goal tracking + Commitment contracts == [http://beeminder.com](http://beeminder.com) > > > > > > > > – > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > > > Groups “Akratics Anonymous” group. > > > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > > > > an email to akratics+u…@\*\*[googlegroups.com](http://googlegroups.com). > > > > > > For more options, visit [https://groups.google.com/\*\*groups/opt\_out](https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_out)[https://groups.google.com/groups/opt\_out](https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out) > > > . > > > > – > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > “Akratics Anonymous” group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > > email to [akratics+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com](mailto:akratics+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com). > > For more options, visit [https://groups.google.com/groups/opt\_out](https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out). ---
**Author:** ![Philip\_Hellyer](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.beeminder.com/philip_hellyer/32/675_2.png) [@Philip\_Hellyer](https://forum.beeminder.com/u/Philip_Hellyer)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2013, 1:47pm UTC](https://forum.beeminder.com/t/death-to-auto-widening-yellow-brick-roads/1440/13 "2013-08-07T13:47:19Z")
Bingo! Thanks Ess. I think you’ve hit on what I was trying to express about there being an essential difference between measuring weight and counting do-more tasks. For me, the key quote is this one: “weight loss is not a behaviour, it’s an outcome of behaviour” Behaviours (and not-doings) are catered for by do-more and set-a-limit goals. Fat-loser and weight-gainer goals are outcomes, which we once described on the site as having values that were expected to vary but to have a particular trend. If you’re keen for Beeminder to use the trend rather than the individual datapoints, you could upvote this UserVoice suggestion: > **[Use the purple line (weighted moving average) to determine lane position](https://beeminder.uservoice.com/forums/3011-general/suggestions/3097030-use-the-purple-line-weighted-moving-average-to-d)** > > It is frustrating that one single weigh-in, unusually high for whatever reason, can derail the entire goal and freeze my graph. I LOVE the purple line, and its position within the yellow brick road is what I plan to monitor. I wish the purple line... Looking back over my weight-goal graph, the skinny purple line is above the (current-width) yellow-brick-road in 2 places, and is a good reflection of where I ought to have derailed. Speaking of road-width, the skinny purple line moves slowly enough that the width of the road is somewhat less important. I suspect that it should still be tied to the variability of the data, but the implications of that haven’t settled in my head yet. I’m also uncertain about what this will do for beemergency days—possibly no difference, just teeny-tiny effects on the purple line. But as Essentiae said, by the time you’re over the road on a weight goal, you may already have lost. Philip On Tuesday, 6 August 2013 12:22:16 UTC+1, Essentiae wrote: > TLDR: I’ve bolded the parts that I think matter; so that you don’t have to > read so much of my yammer to get to my points. > > I’m a fan of the auto-widening road, but I think there might be another > way to accommodate my concerns about losing it. The problem is that it uses > custom goal settings, to which most users won’t have access. Can I > recommend that _if you get rid of auto-widening roads, you make some of > the custom features available for the “lose/gain weight” type of goals_? > (Maybe just one of these could be allowed per user so it’s not a loophole > around not having access to custom goals if you’re not a subscriber.) > > Today is an example case of what worries me. I’ve recently deleted my > “max safe days” on most of my goals (for unrelated reasons). Thank > goodness, because _today when I weighed in, I weighed in at 2.2 lbs less > than yesterday_. When I got on the scale and saw that, I didn’t think > “Hmm, I wonder if I’m dehydrated” or “I wonder if this is closer to my real > weight (seeing as the most recent point were a little higher than the > “group” of nearby points) and I’m balancing out again”. Instead,\* I > thought “Shit! That’s going to screw up my graph” This is not the right > response to have elicited by a low weigh-in.\* (I wasn’t sure when exactly > auto-widening would die, or if it perhaps already has, so I wasn’t sure if > I’d be affected yet.) > > See, _if I had kept my max-safe-days_ (which I want to use to keep myself > pushing forward rather than coasting if/when I have particularly good > months) then _I’d be in trouble because it would have tightened my road > and I would derail tomorrow or the next day when a balanced weigh-in occurs > again._ _This is solved, probably, by custom road width and using “edgy”_(“put the initial point on the road edge instead of centerline”) so that if > the max-safe-days kicks in the new point will (I assume) be at the bottom > of the road so that it won’t shove my road so far down that I’m screwed, > and it also won’t require me to have a road width 2x the necessary size. > > This also would help what Jill has called “womanly fluctuations” as well > as medical situations. I have a thing that makes it such that some days I > weigh much more than my “weight”, as well, and so having the ability to set > my own road width could be really helpful in allowing me to have a road > that is as steep as I want and also as wide as I want. _(Something I can > do with a custom goal, but new customers can’t.)_ > > All of this still doesn’t really fix the one thing that I think is more > important, though. I think the focus on the “daily” part is kind of off. _The > idea that if we’re over the line one day we can try to claw our ways back > down that day to correct it is kind of silly (and seems an unhealthy way to > look at weight loss)._ [1] If I’ve reached the point that I’m over the > line, I may have already lost (unless it was a weird, random upward > fluctuation). \*Today’s datapoint should matter less in weight loss goals > than the trend. Today should matter only in so far as it’s a piece of that > trend. I would greatly prefer having a road that is calibrated to derail > according to an average. I think that’s way more stable a measurement for > weight loss datapoints (because random fluctuations only effect it slightly > since the surrounding points matter too) and it is, I believe, a healthier > way to think of weight loss. \*Today matters, because it could push my > average over, but it’s not the focus. _Most Beeminded goals are behaviour > (read more of this, eat less of that, run more, lift more, smoke less, > whatever); weight loss is not a behaviour, it’s an outcome of behaviour. > Outcomes are less predictable and less in our direct control than > behaviour, and I think a system that measures an outcome too tightly is a > little off. Behaviour should be measured tightly; an outcome should be > measure more loosely, and thought of as being representative of behaviour > that needs to be altered._ ("Hmm… my average is trending upwards; > perhaps 12 twinkies a day is too many… I’m going to create an “eat fewer > twinkies goal”) > > The solution I will use to adapt to this will be one that I think you > guys… will not love, to say the least, but this post is stupid-long > already, so I’ll save that for another time. > > Ess > > [1] Note that I’m not saying that you should get rid of multiple > weigh-ins; I think they’re useful for other reasons. > > On Friday, August 2, 2013 11:02:36 AM UTC-4, Jill Renaud wrote: > > > Philip, > > > > I really like your response here. I also agree with your opinion that a > > razor thin road will lead to more derailments with regards to weight loss > > roads. That said, I think the auto-widening feature can be detrimental to > > weight loss. I’ve found that having a fixed width (relatively wide) road > > has been working wonders for me. When the road was variable width I’d play > > games that were ultimately bad for my progress. If I was on the right side > > of the road one day, I’d go hog wild and pig out to keep my road wide. > > Obviously going hog wild and pigging out is not beneficial for weight > > loss. Since January I’ve had a my weight +/- 3 lbs road which seems to > > accommodate my womanly fluctuations and also water retention due to > > medicines that I take. > > > > I also agree that taking the lowest weight of the day is beneficial > > because the very first weight of the morning isn’t always the lowest. I’m > > not really sure what the optimal solution is with regards to weight loss > > goals for everyone, but I think after 5 years of beeminding/kibotzing I’ve > > figured out what works for me. > > > > -Jill > > > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 10:43 AM, pjh [phi...@hellyer.net](mailto:phi...@hellyer.net) wrote: > > > > > One of the benefits of Beeminder graphs is the predictability that they > > > bring to my life. At the extreme, I react to beemergency days and JFDI the > > > task. At its best, I will notice that my gym-going graph will be in the > > > red within 3 days, so I plan a gym morning into my schedule. Being able to > > > predict when the emergency days are going to hit, and take steps to make my > > > life less reactive, is one of the intangible benefits of Beeminder.[1] > > > > > > Weight graphs are not predictable in the same way. I can see my > > > gym-going emergency day coming, but I won’t know that it’s a weight > > > beemergency until I stand on the scale in the morning. [2] > > > > > > This morning was such a day, and happily I had already intended to go to > > > the gym. (Turns out that it’s possible to get back on the road without > > > resorting to Danny’s dozen weigh-ins. 🙂 My first weigh-in was well into > > > the red. I had a bit of breakfast, ran to the gym, swam, stretched, and > > > ran back, adequately hydrated throughout. And weighed-in at 0.3kg lighter. > > > Sufficient to get me back on the road & safely achieved.) > > > > > > We used to only allow one weigh-in each day, and I think it caused > > > people to dread standing on the scale. So they’d not weigh in daily, which > > > meant they’d lose sight of their progress (or regress), which meant they’d > > > be more likely to derail, etc. That was ‘fixed’ by the road-widening > > > guarantee. So Danny’s absolutely right that we’ve piled one hack on top of > > > another, and that it’s high time we identify & resolve the underlying > > > problem. > > > > > > (@Katherine: You can, by emailing support, have us change how multiple > > > weigh-ins are counted or aggregated. I think “first of the day” is still an > > > option.) > > > > > > I don’t have a problem with doing my daily weigh-in, so the argument > > > that I’ll still step through the colours on my way to derailing doesn’t > > > apply to me. (And wouldn’t occur if presumptive-pessimism is implemented.) > > > I think that the turquoise swath itself might be vestigial; it used to > > > clearly show the difference between actual data slope and road slope. With > > > auto-re-railment, most of my data points follow the road, and the turquoise > > > swath does the same. (I’ve turned the swath back on for a few goals to see > > > whether it’s more interesting than I remember.) > > > > > > I’ve always liked that we treat different types of graph differently. > > > Weight loss graphs are for absolute measures that vary, but where the goal > > > is a downward trend. This is substantively different from counting units > > > of progress that increase monotonically. > > > > > > It seems that a razor-thin road will force me into exactly the situation > > > that Danny wants to avoid. My reality will be governed by an indiscernible > > > and invisible line somewhere below the road. I predict an increase in > > > derailments.[3] > > > > > > The occasional derailment on the path to a goal is fine, provided that I > > > think I’ve made good progress that wouldn’t have occurred without > > > Beeminder. Seemingly spurious beyond-my-control derailments don’t fall in > > > that category. Double plus bad, on so many levels. > > > > > > Having said all of that: > > > > > > It’s possible that a presumptively-pessimistic view of safe-days will be > > > enough to let me see where I really am with respect to the road edge. > > > > > > It certainly would change the games that I can play with myself; instead > > > of paying slightly more attention to my diet when I’m orange, that will > > > need to become a rule like ‘if today I’m heavier than yesterday’ or ‘if > > > fewer than 2 safe days’ or something less obviously derived from the graph > > > and its colouring. > > > > > > But I’m still doubtful that this is for the best, and still welcome > > > being mistaken. > > > > > > Philip > > > > > > [1] My life seems to be in a continual state of imbalance. If I’m on > > > top of my physical health, my work suffers. If I’m on top of conference > > > speaking, my other commitments suffer. If I’m caught up on email, > > > something else suffers. And so on. One of the roles that Beeminder plays > > > for me is to ensure that I keep all the important plates spinning a little, > > > regardless of where my impetuous focus currently lies. > > > > > > [2] For this same reason, auto-data goals need to do their first fetch > > > before I check my graphs in the morning. Can’t be finding out part-way > > > through my day that something is going to derail at midnight. (I suppose > > > that I could force this behaviour by setting a stupidly early morning > > > panic-email time, but it should be standard.) > > > > > > [3] Worse, unexpected derailments will encourage more conservative > > > roads, which are thinner in the new regime, which will cause more > > > derailments, etc. Which screws with the benefit of beeminding. (And is > > > reminiscent of the dreaded-weigh-in loop that lead us to auto-widening > > > roads in the first place…) > > > > > > On Friday, August 2, 2013 2:47:40 PM UTC+1, Katherine Baxter wrote: > > > > > > > I just joined this list, and I’ll probably have something more > > > > substantial to say about weight goals later after reading more of the > > > > discussion, but I wanted to reply now because I object pretty strongly to > > > > the idea of letting you weigh in multiple times in one day and taking the > > > > lowest value. I had no idea (and now wish I still didn’t know) it worked > > > > that way now. I always weigh myself only once, first thing in the morning. > > > > Later in the day when I’m hydrated and fed, I am ~5lbs heavier. That’s 3.5% > > > > of my weight for me - it would be more for a larger person. If I’m off my > > > > road when I first weigh in in the morning, I don’t think there’s anything > > > > healthy I can do to get back on later in the day, and I definitely don’t > > > > want to incentivize myself to do unhealthy things just to stay on my road. > > > > > > > > I’m adding fine print to my weight goal that says I am only allowed to > > > > record the first weight I measure on a particular day. > > > > > > > > Why on earth does it work this way? > > > > > > > > On Friday, July 26, 2013 9:50:52 PM UTC-4, Daniel Reeves wrote: > > > > > > > > > This is madness: [The Magical Widening Yellow Brick Road | Beeminder Blog](http://blog.beeminder.com/roadwidth) > > > > > > > > > > At the time we kind of painted ourselves into that corner and didn’t > > > > > see a way out. We thought we needed auto-widening to solve a > > > > > psychological problem with weight loss (or more generally, akrasia > > > > > with respect to a noisy metric) where you try to skate too close to > > > > > the edge and sooner or later get burned by a random fluctuation. > > > > > > > > > > Auto-widening was a (too) clever solution given the constraints we > > > > > started with: your first weigh-in in the morning is your official > > > > > weight, and you don’t get to peek at what it’s going to be before > > > > > reporting it. In that universe, you need guidance from Beeminder on > > > > > when to panic. The answer was, if you’re in the wrong lane today then > > > > > you have to panic because you might be doomed when you step on the > > > > > scale in the morning. Auto-widening meant it was time to panic if and > > > > > only if you found yourself in the wrong lane, which is the important > > > > > bit of psychology. There has to be a way to save up the panic and hit > > > > > you with it all at once so that you actually do panic. (No > > > > > wolf-crying.) Auto-widening does that. If you’re in the right lane > > > > > then you don’t have to panic yet. You can’t lose tomorrow. If you’re > > > > > in the wrong lane, you can lose tomorrow. > > > > > > > > > > (Also it sounds really good – “Beeminder uses fancy maths to > > > > > automatically adapt to random fluctuation in your weight” – which > > > > > will make this hard to throw away!) > > > > > > > > > > But all the strategery is different in the current universe. Beeminder > > > > > takes the min weight of the day, and you can keep weighing in all day > > > > > long, till midnight. So now there’s no true cause for panic unless > > > > > you’re actually in the red, in which case you have to claw your way > > > > > back on the road by the end of the day. For a true akratic doing the > > > > > absolute bare minimum to cling to the edge of their road, > > > > > auto-widening is now meaningless. If I’m not in the red I just don’t > > > > > give a shit. > > > > > > > > > > A huge amount of cruft and confusion and corner cases (not to mention > > > > > at least one long-standing bug) in Beeminder will go away when we drop > > > > > auto-widening. > > > > > > > > > > Yay for (eventual) progress! And thanks so much to everyone on this > > > > > list who helped us hash this out! (And the hashing can continue, of > > > > > course.) > > > > > > > > > > Technical addendum: > > > > > > > > > > 1. We’ll keep the first-week leniency: Your weight loss road starts at > > > > > the max weigh-in from your first week of data. > > > > > > > > > > 2. The can’t-lose-tomorrow guarantee will still obtain, in a sense, > > > > > but only applies for flatlining [1]. The width of each lane of the > > > > > road is always equal to the current daily rate of the road [2]. So > > > > > being just into the green today and reporting nothing means blue > > > > > tomorrow, orange the next day, and red the day after that. > > > > > > > > > > [1] [http://blog.beeminder.com/\*\*glossary/#flatline](http://blog.beeminder.com/**glossary/#flatline)[http://blog.beeminder.com/glossary/#flatline](http://blog.beeminder.com/glossary/#flatline) > > > > > > > > > > [2] Confusing exception: flat spots have road width equal to max of > > > > > the width of the preceding and subsequent segments. > > > > > > > > > > – > > > > > [http://dreev.es](http://dreev.es) – search://“Daniel Reeves” > > > > > Goal tracking + Commitment contracts == [http://beeminder.com](http://beeminder.com) > > > > > > > > – > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > > > Groups “Akratics Anonymous” group. > > > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > > > > an email to [akratics+u...@googlegroups.com](mailto:akratics+u...@googlegroups.com). > > > > For more options, visit [https://groups.google.com/groups/opt\_out](https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out). ---
**Author:** ![dreev](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.beeminder.com/dreev/32/4311_2.png) [@dreev](https://forum.beeminder.com/u/dreev)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2013, 6:25am UTC](https://forum.beeminder.com/t/death-to-auto-widening-yellow-brick-roads/1440/14 "2013-08-08T06:25:07Z")
Thanks so much for the input on this, everyone. (And keep it coming!) I’m thinking hard about it. First, I think I was confusingly conflating 2 things before: 1. the “can’t lose tomorrow” guarantee with immediate auto-widening (road accommodates any jump today as long as you were in the blue yesterday) 2. determining road width based on variance of the data (road width is such that if your true weight followed the centerline then random fluctuations would put you above the road 5% of the time and below the road another 5% of the time) Those are orthogonal and I think it may be uncontroversial to drop #1. Jill gives a great example of why #1 is actually bad (purposefully pigging out to widen your road!). But I’m also not sold on the value of #2. I think we have a lot of red herrings in this debate. Remember that if you’re truly akratic then nothing really matters but the top edge of your yellow brick road. (If you’re not truly akratic then just stay comfortably below the road and ignore all this!) So I’m not buying the concern about a razor-thin road. Right now you have a huge yellow area below you but it’s that razor-thin top edge that’s all that matters. And remember that the turquoise swath, as of a few days ago, has width determined by the algorithm in #2 above. So you’ve got that guidance. Make the top edge of your aura touch the top edge of your road and you have about a 5% chance of a fluctuation derailing you (assuming no emergency-day heroics). This is probably getting too theoretical and it’s time to just try things! Specific replies follow: > (@Katherine: You can, by emailing support, have us change how multiple weigh-ins are counted or aggregated. I think “first of the day” is still an option.) Yup, and it’s available to users in advanced settings for custom goals, though that’s a premium feature. I think it’s too late for us to backpedal on the “min weight of the day” rule as the default but I certainly see where you’re coming from on that, and aggday=first will make Beeminder do what you want. Another reason we bowed to pressure originally on the min-weight rule (which I also originally objected to) was that sometimes your scale can give an anomalous reading, or maybe you forget to go to the bathroom first. But then I came to actually like the ridiculous gaming of running around the block until you sweat your way back onto the road. I don’t find it hard to stick to the rule that you can only engage in craziness (like running around the block, or eating only vegetables) that’s in line with the long term goal of healthy weight loss as well as the short term goal of clawing your way back onto the yellow brick road. To Essy’s point that you should beemind the moving average, not the individual weight: The moving average is the right thing to look at to see the trend but I don’t think it will help to beemind it. Here’s my concen, something Philip hinted at: Imagine your road is sloping down and you’re below it at first but you weigh in every day at the same weight, 100kg. You’re on a collision course with the road. After 9 days of 100kg each day, you find yourself on the wrong side of the road. It’s an emergency day and you need to lose .5kg to get back on. Except you’re beeminding the moving average so now you need to lose 10 times that (or whatever) to actually bring the average down enough. You’re actually requiring a bunch more foresight to keep from derailing, which I think is a nonstarter. In general, being akratic and beeminding the moving average still means that you’re skating the edge and every day there’s some magic weight that you must weigh in at to keep from derailing. That’s fundamental to beeminding weight. No matter how you try to smooth the data or widen the road, if you eked by yesterday then there will necessarily be a magic weight that you absolutely must hit today to stay on track. It’s like a no-free-lunch theorem. Whatever we do ends up equivalent to having a single bright line that your weight is not allowed to cross every day. Essy’s point about beeminding inputs vs outputs: This is astute and is a good general principle, but I think weight is an exception. For one, it’s so easy to measure. And as long as you have a way to account for the randomness (which hopefully Beeminder will continue to do) then you do have sufficient control over it. I’d actually advocate going for the best of both worlds: beemind your weight but keep it conservative and the stakes low – just make sure it’s going in the right direction or staying in a reasonable range – and _also_ beemind all the inputs (sugar, exercise, vegetables, anything you’re akratic about) and beemind those aggressively and with high stakes. Beemind the inputs so that weight becomes a no-brainer. But still beemind it, since it’s all too easy to delude yourself. – [http://dreev.es](http://dreev.es) – search://“Daniel Reeves” Goal tracking + Commitment contracts == [http://beeminder.com](http://beeminder.com) ---
**Author:** ![Essentiae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dec6dc/32.png) [@Essentiae](https://forum.beeminder.com/u/Essentiae)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2013, 1:21pm UTC](https://forum.beeminder.com/t/death-to-auto-widening-yellow-brick-roads/1440/15 "2013-08-08T13:21:31Z")
_Thin vs. wide roads_ _"Remember that if you’re truly akratic then nothing really matters but the top edge of your yellow brick road. (If you’re not truly akratic then just stay comfortably below the road and ignore all this!) So I’m not buying the concern about a razor-thin road."_ I think it’s right that it’s the top of the road that matters. That said, the yellow brick road provides valuable visual feedback on how you’re doing: when you’re in risky territory (orange), when you’re sailing smoothly (blue), and when you’re rockin’ it (green). Having only green and red points loses that valuable visual data, as well as the safety one has earned when getting onto a green point. Beeminder doesn’t just help akratics stop doing dumb $#!~ today, it also sort of teaches akratics the value of thinking and working ahead. I’ve certainly noticed a tendency to start thinking things like “I should get X goal above my road by a few days cause event Y is coming up and I don’t want to have to think about it during that time.” I’ve always ~thought~ that… but now I’m doing it with some goals cause I have a visual representation of my effort. That’s a fundamental shift. I think people who are doing better than their roads have “earned”, in a way, the feeling of safety on the green/blue side. So road width matters, IMO. I think custom road width for weight, if it’s not going to have auto-widening, allows that. (BUT fix it so we can’t change the road width on the fly; there should be a 7-day countdown for road width changes. Otherwise: “Argh, I’m over by .2lbs today… guess I’ll change my road width…”) _Saving yourself on a given day_ _"Imagine your road is sloping down and you’re below it at first but you weigh in every day at the same weight, 100kg. You’re on a collision course with the road. After 9 days of 100kg each day, you find yourself on the wrong side of the road. It’s an emergency day and you need to lose .5kg to get back on."_ Then you’ve already lost. If you have to try to lose weight in a day (when you’re going to be (and OUGHT to be) putting food and water into your body from the moment you get up), I think you’re in a bad place. I’m really leery of the idea of trying to recover on any single given day. But that may be because of how I use my weight goal. I use it to force me to tighten the behavour goals that result in weight loss/maintenance (Daniel mentioned a few ideas later on in his post) rather than as a “today” thing. If my weight’s not coming down, I need to tweak some of my behavour goals, on penalty of derailing later. (For this reason, I would love my weight goal to be set up with a 30-day akrasia horizon, instead of a 7-day akrasia horizon.) I think having a weight loss goal without having behavioural goals is symptomatic of the akratic problem when connected to weight loss. Weight goals are fundamentally different from goals like getting more work done or limiting TV hours, and the akratic problem for that type of goal is different from the akratic problem for the “omgz just do a little of this today you procrastinator” type goals. _Real-time vs average_ So… sometimes I talk of the world of the “ideal” about things that don’t actually matter ~a ton~ to me. This is one of those cases. I really don’t care that much whether the road is measuring individual datapoints or the average, and I think the fact that it would mean making what might be some pretty significant changes to Beeminder behind-the-scenes probably makes it not worth it. The reason I would support it (in lieu of the auto-widening roads) is for the unreasonable derailment cases (though, auto-widening roads still didn’t fix many of the long-term, regular, legit derail cases). I believe very strongly that genuine “am not losing weight so am over today” datapoints = you’ve already lost… pay the hell up. Weight goals are think-ahead goals and we akratics need to learn that. Losing water by running around or veggy fasting for a day is not a healthy solution, IMO. You’ve already lost… pay up, go have a glass of water, a normal breakfast, and make healthier choices this week. So, whether it’s impossible to move the moving average down after that or not means nothing to me. What worries me, are those days that are not representative of the true trend. If you are genuinely on the right track, you shouldn’t be penalized for something like water retention, pms retention, or other things best left to your imagination. Auto-widening roads or using an average doesn’t ~really~ help that, cause in the water-retention or pms cases, we’re probably looking at several “above goal” days even if you’re actually doing well and even if you’re losing fat during that time. I don’t really care how the goal is set up as long as it a) forces me to plan my behaviour ~enough~ to meet my targets, b) doesn’t leave me thinking about hitting the sauna to weigh in lower, c) doesn’t punish me for non-representative changes. For me, a longer akrasia horizon for weight goals + some different way of counting when a derail happens (whatever it is) that forgives spikes that aren’t representative is enough to do that… whatever those details are. This is what I’ve done from time to time (and might do again… I’m sorry Daniel, you’re going to hate this). I would enter my datapoints, but fail to report my above the road points. If they were genuinely above the road b/c I was actually failing, I would derail by not entering for several days and running out of time. If they weren’t, I would pop back down before that happened and the trend would continue just fine. This was fair, to me, b/c it meant I wouldn’t be unfairly penalized… as long as the road was steep enough to matter or the derail point was ~before~ the akrasia horizon. Otherwise it’s too easy to change the road rate and never derail… The problem with that is that I lose the QM value. BUT, what if weight loss goals were set with different derail conditions. This is off the top of my head, so there might be stupid things I’m not thinking of hidden here: 1. Custom road width. (I want to earn the blue points, dammit! hehe. But more importantly, I also think visual representation if someone is losing ~too much~ weight is important. losing over 2-3lbs/week has gallbladder implications, so someone who sets their road to 2lbs with 1 safe day and who has a trend that is clearly steeper has a visual cue that they should eat a little more to stay on the healthy side of their efforts. I realize these are the minority cases, and not my own case, but it is one of the ways Beeminder can help people who are a little overzealous about it to keep from hurting themselves) 2. Users (more typical than those mentioned in 1) setting longer safe day buffers (I like 14 because some of the legit spikes can be 10-days long but can catch right back up afterwards; men might prefer something like 5-7 days, all depending on personal patterns/medical considerations). See attached as an example of what was a legit spike. 3. A farther akrasia horizon for this goal (I like 30 days, but it could be a customizable value, maybe?… with changing that value subject to the ~currently~ set akrasia horizon value so that I can’t just weasel), 4. (sorry) changing it so that it allows me to enter my above the line points for QM purposes, but derails as though I hadn’t. Make it so that some recent point matters, but not necessarily the most recent point. Maybe the lowest day in the “max safe days” range. I.e., if I have a 10-day max safe day range, then the lowest day in the last 10 days is what counts for derailing. BUT, it doesn’t count as though it’s today’s point, it counts as though I haven’t entered a point since. That way, if there fails to be positive change in [max safe day range] number of days, I lose. (But count the Hard caps by using today’s point and it’s distance from the point I need to be back to when I need to be back on the road.) 5. Allow only 1 weight goal per user so that people don’t start using weight goals in order to create “debts” for other kinds of goals. (“I’ll just create a weight-type goal for my reading because then I can choose to catch up if I don’t keep on track” \<-- FAIL!) This could allow users who know their legit fluctuation details to plan for them with safety, but not to use their safety net too loosely. And, although I get your point about akratics and the upper line or the road, weight goals are just different. They can’t be treated like other goals b/c they’re just not like other goals. Part of heading in the right direction is realizing that and adapting to it, I think. AND if you want to treat it like other goals then create it like another goal: custom goal for the no eating + sauna win. Sorry for yet another way-too-long post! ---
**Author:** ![Katherine\_Baxter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/839c29/32.png) [@Katherine\_Baxter](https://forum.beeminder.com/u/Katherine_Baxter)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2013, 2:03pm UTC](https://forum.beeminder.com/t/death-to-auto-widening-yellow-brick-roads/1440/16 "2013-08-08T14:03:30Z")
> You’re on a collision > course with the road. After 9 days of 100kg each day, you find > yourself on the wrong side of the road. If I’ve been on a collision course for 9 days and haven’t done anything about it, I’m okay with derailing. I am okay with needing to think ahead for a weight goal. I’d either like to beemind the purple line itself, or have a guarantee that I won’t derail if the purple line is in the right lane. I derailed a weight goal once due to water retention happening 2 days in a row, even though my purple line was solidly in the right lane. I found it so frustrating that I just stopped beeminding my weight. And a side note: > I don’t find it hard to stick to the rule that you can only > engage in craziness (like running around the block, or eating only > vegetables) that’s in line with the long term goal of healthy weight > loss I disagree! I don’t think running around the block when you haven’t had anything to eat or drink that day, or eating only vegetables for a day are healthy. On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 11:25 PM, Daniel Reeves [dreeves@beeminder.com](mailto:dreeves@beeminder.com) wrote: > Thanks so much for the input on this, everyone. (And keep it coming!) > I’m thinking hard about it. > > First, I think I was confusingly conflating 2 things before: > > 1. the “can’t lose tomorrow” guarantee with immediate auto-widening > (road accommodates any jump today as long as you were in the blue > yesterday) > 2. determining road width based on variance of the data (road width is > such that if your true weight followed the centerline then random > fluctuations would put you above the road 5% of the time and below the > road another 5% of the time) > > Those are orthogonal and I think it may be uncontroversial to drop #1. > Jill gives a great example of why #1 is actually bad (purposefully > pigging out to widen your road!). > > But I’m also not sold on the value of #2. I think we have a lot of red > herrings in this debate. Remember that if you’re truly akratic then > nothing really matters but the top edge of your yellow brick road. (If > you’re not truly akratic then just stay comfortably below the road and > ignore all this!) So I’m not buying the concern about a razor-thin > road. Right now you have a huge yellow area below you but it’s that > razor-thin top edge that’s all that matters. And remember that the > turquoise swath, as of a few days ago, has width determined by the > algorithm in #2 above. So you’ve got that guidance. Make the top edge > of your aura touch the top edge of your road and you have about a 5% > chance of a fluctuation derailing you (assuming no emergency-day > heroics). > > This is probably getting too theoretical and it’s time to just try things! > > Specific replies follow: > > > (@Katherine: You can, by emailing support, have us change how multiple weigh-ins are counted or aggregated. I think “first of the day” is still an option.) > > Yup, and it’s available to users in advanced settings for custom > goals, though that’s a premium feature. > I think it’s too late for us to backpedal on the “min weight of the > day” rule as the default but I certainly see where you’re coming from > on that, and aggday=first will make Beeminder do what you want. > Another reason we bowed to pressure originally on the min-weight rule > (which I also originally objected to) was that sometimes your scale > can give an anomalous reading, or maybe you forget to go to the > bathroom first. But then I came to actually like the ridiculous gaming > of running around the block until you sweat your way back onto the > road. I don’t find it hard to stick to the rule that you can only > engage in craziness (like running around the block, or eating only > vegetables) that’s in line with the long term goal of healthy weight > loss as well as the short term goal of clawing your way back onto the > yellow brick road. > > To Essy’s point that you should beemind the moving average, not the > individual weight: > > The moving average is the right thing to look at to see the trend but > I don’t think it will help to beemind it. Here’s my concen, something > Philip hinted at: > Imagine your road is sloping down and you’re below it at first but you > weigh in every day at the same weight, 100kg. You’re on a collision > course with the road. After 9 days of 100kg each day, you find > yourself on the wrong side of the road. It’s an emergency day and you > need to lose .5kg to get back on. Except you’re beeminding the moving > average so now you need to lose 10 times that (or whatever) to > actually bring the average down enough. You’re actually requiring a > bunch more foresight to keep from derailing, which I think is a > nonstarter. In general, being akratic and beeminding the moving > average still means that you’re skating the edge and every day there’s > some magic weight that you must weigh in at to keep from derailing. > That’s fundamental to beeminding weight. No matter how you try to > smooth the data or widen the road, if you eked by yesterday then there > will necessarily be a magic weight that you absolutely must hit today > to stay on track. It’s like a no-free-lunch theorem. Whatever we do > ends up equivalent to having a single bright line that your weight is > not allowed to cross every day. > > Essy’s point about beeminding inputs vs outputs: > > This is astute and is a good general principle, but I think weight is > an exception. For one, it’s so easy to measure. And as long as you > have a way to account for the randomness (which hopefully Beeminder > will continue to do) then you do have sufficient control over it. I’d > actually advocate going for the best of both worlds: beemind your > weight but keep it conservative and the stakes low – just make sure > it’s going in the right direction or staying in a reasonable range – > and _also_ beemind all the inputs (sugar, exercise, vegetables, > anything you’re akratic about) and beemind those aggressively and with > high stakes. Beemind the inputs so that weight becomes a no-brainer. > But still beemind it, since it’s all too easy to delude yourself. > > – > [http://dreev.es](http://dreev.es) – search://“Daniel Reeves” > Goal tracking + Commitment contracts == [http://beeminder.com](http://beeminder.com) > > – > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Akratics Anonymous” group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [akratics+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com](mailto:akratics+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com). > For more options, visit [https://groups.google.com/groups/opt\_out](https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out). ---
**Author:** ![Reto\_Stamm](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.beeminder.com/reto_stamm/32/693_2.png) [@Reto\_Stamm](https://forum.beeminder.com/u/Reto_Stamm)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2013, 3:10pm UTC](https://forum.beeminder.com/t/death-to-auto-widening-yellow-brick-roads/1440/17 "2013-08-08T15:10:18Z")
Another consideration from a business perspective as well as from an exhausted, likely to fail persons perspective, is ease of use. The simplicity of the explanation. “Messaging” I know we all like to optimize these systems, but every exception makes it harder to explain. Ideally, half a sentence should be enough to explain everything, and every exception will confuse newcomers. With added special math, we might have a better system, but only a very few people like to use it, or understand it. While I think I am clever, once I am sleepy and tired, I am also among the confused ones. So, one option I think I could suggest is using the color scheme that’s used for the frames of the images. And a “hard line” at the bottom, that is based on the ramp. Go below it, it’s red, you fail by the end of the day. Orange zone, likely to fail tomorrow, but good for today, green zone, good for today and likely also tomorrow. Any and all widening will push you further away from the line, there’s no going over the line. (Orange and red areas get wider). The “road” may widen automatically, if stddev is increasing, but not narrow. You can widen the road yourself. You can not narrow it. Essentially, what I am saying is to make the minimum edge of the yellow brick road the main line, and stack things on top of it. And all widening is towards more results, not from the center of the road. The easy explanation is: 1. The line is never to be crossed. Ever. Period. 2. The colors are guides, not guarantees. You can adjust them if you like, but the line is the line. Green - good, Orange, watch it, Red - you are pretty much dead unless you really work on it today, and your rate line is hard. If it’s too little, adjust your margins, tough luck. Initial values for the borders (for example for weight) can take into account the historical fluctuations of people with similar goals, or be based on maybe 3\*stddev of the first, flat week. On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 11:25 PM, Daniel Reeves [dreeves@beeminder.com](mailto:dreeves@beeminder.com)wrote: > Thanks so much for the input on this, everyone. (And keep it coming!) > I’m thinking hard about it. > > First, I think I was confusingly conflating 2 things before: > > 1. the “can’t lose tomorrow” guarantee with immediate auto-widening > (road accommodates any jump today as long as you were in the blue > yesterday) > 2. determining road width based on variance of the data (road width is > such that if your true weight followed the centerline then random > fluctuations would put you above the road 5% of the time and below the > road another 5% of the time) > > Those are orthogonal and I think it may be uncontroversial to drop #1. > Jill gives a great example of why #1 is actually bad (purposefully > pigging out to widen your road!). > > But I’m also not sold on the value of #2. I think we have a lot of red > herrings in this debate. Remember that if you’re truly akratic then > nothing really matters but the top edge of your yellow brick road. (If > you’re not truly akratic then just stay comfortably below the road and > ignore all this!) So I’m not buying the concern about a razor-thin > road. Right now you have a huge yellow area below you but it’s that > razor-thin top edge that’s all that matters. And remember that the > turquoise swath, as of a few days ago, has width determined by the > algorithm in #2 above. So you’ve got that guidance. Make the top edge > of your aura touch the top edge of your road and you have about a 5% > chance of a fluctuation derailing you (assuming no emergency-day > heroics). > > This is probably getting too theoretical and it’s time to just try things! > > Specific replies follow: > > > (@Katherine: You can, by emailing support, have us change how multiple > > weigh-ins are counted or aggregated. I think “first of the day” is still an > > option.) > > Yup, and it’s available to users in advanced settings for custom > goals, though that’s a premium feature. > I think it’s too late for us to backpedal on the “min weight of the > day” rule as the default but I certainly see where you’re coming from > on that, and aggday=first will make Beeminder do what you want. > Another reason we bowed to pressure originally on the min-weight rule > (which I also originally objected to) was that sometimes your scale > can give an anomalous reading, or maybe you forget to go to the > bathroom first. But then I came to actually like the ridiculous gaming > of running around the block until you sweat your way back onto the > road. I don’t find it hard to stick to the rule that you can only > engage in craziness (like running around the block, or eating only > vegetables) that’s in line with the long term goal of healthy weight > loss as well as the short term goal of clawing your way back onto the > yellow brick road. > > To Essy’s point that you should beemind the moving average, not the > individual weight: > > The moving average is the right thing to look at to see the trend but > I don’t think it will help to beemind it. Here’s my concen, something > Philip hinted at: > Imagine your road is sloping down and you’re below it at first but you > weigh in every day at the same weight, 100kg. You’re on a collision > course with the road. After 9 days of 100kg each day, you find > yourself on the wrong side of the road. It’s an emergency day and you > need to lose .5kg to get back on. Except you’re beeminding the moving > average so now you need to lose 10 times that (or whatever) to > actually bring the average down enough. You’re actually requiring a > bunch more foresight to keep from derailing, which I think is a > nonstarter. In general, being akratic and beeminding the moving > average still means that you’re skating the edge and every day there’s > some magic weight that you must weigh in at to keep from derailing. > That’s fundamental to beeminding weight. No matter how you try to > smooth the data or widen the road, if you eked by yesterday then there > will necessarily be a magic weight that you absolutely must hit today > to stay on track. It’s like a no-free-lunch theorem. Whatever we do > ends up equivalent to having a single bright line that your weight is > not allowed to cross every day. > > Essy’s point about beeminding inputs vs outputs: > > This is astute and is a good general principle, but I think weight is > an exception. For one, it’s so easy to measure. And as long as you > have a way to account for the randomness (which hopefully Beeminder > will continue to do) then you do have sufficient control over it. I’d > actually advocate going for the best of both worlds: beemind your > weight but keep it conservative and the stakes low – just make sure > it’s going in the right direction or staying in a reasonable range – > and _also_ beemind all the inputs (sugar, exercise, vegetables, > anything you’re akratic about) and beemind those aggressively and with > high stakes. Beemind the inputs so that weight becomes a no-brainer. > But still beemind it, since it’s all too easy to delude yourself. > > – > [http://dreev.es](http://dreev.es) – search://“Daniel Reeves” > Goal tracking + Commitment contracts == [http://beeminder.com](http://beeminder.com) > > – > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > “Akratics Anonymous” group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [akratics+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com](mailto:akratics+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com). > For more options, visit [https://groups.google.com/groups/opt\_out](https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out). ---
**Author:** ![Presley\_Pizzo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e9a140/32.png) [@Presley\_Pizzo](https://forum.beeminder.com/u/Presley_Pizzo)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2013, 3:17pm UTC](https://forum.beeminder.com/t/death-to-auto-widening-yellow-brick-roads/1440/18 "2013-08-08T15:17:49Z")
I don’t have feedback that’s as helpful as Katherine’s or Essy’s, but I wanted to say that I agree with their concern about unhealthy weight loss strategies. Keep in mind how unhealthy a relationship many people have with their weight. You can write nothing all week and churn out a blog post on the last day, but weight loss shouldn’t work like that. On Thursday, August 8, 2013 9:03:30 AM UTC-5, Katherine Baxter wrote: > > You’re on a collision > > course with the road. After 9 days of 100kg each day, you find > > yourself on the wrong side of the road. > > If I’ve been on a collision course for 9 days and haven’t done > anything about it, I’m okay with derailing. I am okay with needing to > think ahead for a weight goal. > > I’d either like to beemind the purple line itself, or have a guarantee > that I won’t derail if the purple line is in the right lane. > > I derailed a weight goal once due to water retention happening 2 days > in a row, even though my purple line was solidly in the right lane. I > found it so frustrating that I just stopped beeminding my weight. > > And a side note: > > > I don’t find it hard to stick to the rule that you can only > > engage in craziness (like running around the block, or eating only > > vegetables) that’s in line with the long term goal of healthy weight > > loss > > I disagree! I don’t think running around the block when you haven’t > had anything to eat or drink that day, or eating only vegetables for a > day are healthy. > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 11:25 PM, Daniel Reeves \<[dre...@beeminder.com](mailto:dre...@beeminder.com)\\> > wrote: > > > Thanks so much for the input on this, everyone. (And keep it coming!) > > I’m thinking hard about it. > > > > First, I think I was confusingly conflating 2 things before: > > > > 1. the “can’t lose tomorrow” guarantee with immediate auto-widening > > (road accommodates any jump today as long as you were in the blue > > yesterday) > > 2. determining road width based on variance of the data (road width is > > such that if your true weight followed the centerline then random > > fluctuations would put you above the road 5% of the time and below the > > road another 5% of the time) > > > > Those are orthogonal and I think it may be uncontroversial to drop #1. > > Jill gives a great example of why #1 is actually bad (purposefully > > pigging out to widen your road!). > > > > But I’m also not sold on the value of #2. I think we have a lot of red > > herrings in this debate. Remember that if you’re truly akratic then > > nothing really matters but the top edge of your yellow brick road. (If > > you’re not truly akratic then just stay comfortably below the road and > > ignore all this!) So I’m not buying the concern about a razor-thin > > road. Right now you have a huge yellow area below you but it’s that > > razor-thin top edge that’s all that matters. And remember that the > > turquoise swath, as of a few days ago, has width determined by the > > algorithm in #2 above. So you’ve got that guidance. Make the top edge > > of your aura touch the top edge of your road and you have about a 5% > > chance of a fluctuation derailing you (assuming no emergency-day > > heroics). > > > > This is probably getting too theoretical and it’s time to just try > > things! > > > > Specific replies follow: > > > > > (@Katherine: You can, by emailing support, have us change how multiple > > > weigh-ins are counted or aggregated. I think “first of the day” is still an > > > option.) > > > > Yup, and it’s available to users in advanced settings for custom > > goals, though that’s a premium feature. > > I think it’s too late for us to backpedal on the “min weight of the > > day” rule as the default but I certainly see where you’re coming from > > on that, and aggday=first will make Beeminder do what you want. > > Another reason we bowed to pressure originally on the min-weight rule > > (which I also originally objected to) was that sometimes your scale > > can give an anomalous reading, or maybe you forget to go to the > > bathroom first. But then I came to actually like the ridiculous gaming > > of running around the block until you sweat your way back onto the > > road. I don’t find it hard to stick to the rule that you can only > > engage in craziness (like running around the block, or eating only > > vegetables) that’s in line with the long term goal of healthy weight > > loss as well as the short term goal of clawing your way back onto the > > yellow brick road. > > > > To Essy’s point that you should beemind the moving average, not the > > individual weight: > > > > The moving average is the right thing to look at to see the trend but > > I don’t think it will help to beemind it. Here’s my concen, something > > Philip hinted at: > > Imagine your road is sloping down and you’re below it at first but you > > weigh in every day at the same weight, 100kg. You’re on a collision > > course with the road. After 9 days of 100kg each day, you find > > yourself on the wrong side of the road. It’s an emergency day and you > > need to lose .5kg to get back on. Except you’re beeminding the moving > > average so now you need to lose 10 times that (or whatever) to > > actually bring the average down enough. You’re actually requiring a > > bunch more foresight to keep from derailing, which I think is a > > nonstarter. In general, being akratic and beeminding the moving > > average still means that you’re skating the edge and every day there’s > > some magic weight that you must weigh in at to keep from derailing. > > That’s fundamental to beeminding weight. No matter how you try to > > smooth the data or widen the road, if you eked by yesterday then there > > will necessarily be a magic weight that you absolutely must hit today > > to stay on track. It’s like a no-free-lunch theorem. Whatever we do > > ends up equivalent to having a single bright line that your weight is > > not allowed to cross every day. > > > > Essy’s point about beeminding inputs vs outputs: > > > > This is astute and is a good general principle, but I think weight is > > an exception. For one, it’s so easy to measure. And as long as you > > have a way to account for the randomness (which hopefully Beeminder > > will continue to do) then you do have sufficient control over it. I’d > > actually advocate going for the best of both worlds: beemind your > > weight but keep it conservative and the stakes low – just make sure > > it’s going in the right direction or staying in a reasonable range – > > and _also_ beemind all the inputs (sugar, exercise, vegetables, > > anything you’re akratic about) and beemind those aggressively and with > > high stakes. Beemind the inputs so that weight becomes a no-brainer. > > But still beemind it, since it’s all too easy to delude yourself. > > > > – > > [http://dreev.es](http://dreev.es) – search://“Daniel Reeves” > > Goal tracking + Commitment contracts == [http://beeminder.com](http://beeminder.com) > > > > – > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups “Akratics Anonymous” group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > > an email to [akratics+u...@googlegroups.com](mailto:akratics+u...@googlegroups.com) \. > > For more options, visit [https://groups.google.com/groups/opt\_out](https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out). ---
**Author:** ![dreev](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.beeminder.com/dreev/32/4311_2.png) [@dreev](https://forum.beeminder.com/u/dreev)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2013, 3:58am UTC](https://forum.beeminder.com/t/death-to-auto-widening-yellow-brick-roads/1440/19 "2013-08-09T03:58:53Z")
Quick clarification: You probably mean “QS” as in Quantified Self. Were you thinking QM as in [quantified-mind.com](http://quantified-mind.com) ? And, yes, a common soap box of mine is that Beeminder should be foremost a quantified self tool. So any hackery involving suppression of data points or entering values that don’t correspond to an actual thing being measured should be a non-starter. Actually I hugely appreciate hearing about cases (like Essy not recording anomalously high weights) where you’re tempted to deviate from the QS ideal because (as with the case of auto-widening or smoothing or minding the moving average, or whatever the answer to this problem is going to be!) it tells us how we need to fix Beeminder to get rid of that temptation. On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 6:21 AM, Essentiae [essentiae@gmail.com](mailto:essentiae@gmail.com) wrote: > Thin vs. wide roads > “Remember that if you’re truly akratic then nothing really matters but the > top edge of your yellow brick road. (If you’re not truly akratic then just > stay comfortably below the road and ignore all this!) So I’m not buying the > concern about a razor-thin road.” > > I think it’s right that it’s the top of the road that matters. That said, > the yellow brick road provides valuable visual feedback on how you’re doing: > when you’re in risky territory (orange), when you’re sailing smoothly > (blue), and when you’re rockin’ it (green). Having only green and red points > loses that valuable visual data, as well as the safety one has earned when > getting onto a green point. Beeminder doesn’t just help akratics stop doing > dumb $#!~ today, it also sort of teaches akratics the value of thinking and > working ahead. I’ve certainly noticed a tendency to start thinking things > like “I should get X goal above my road by a few days cause event Y is > coming up and I don’t want to have to think about it during that time.” I’ve > always ~thought~ that… but now I’m doing it with some goals cause I have a > visual representation of my effort. That’s a fundamental shift. I think > people who are doing better than their roads have “earned”, in a way, the > feeling of safety on the green/blue side. So road width matters, IMO. I > think custom road width for weight, if it’s not going to have auto-widening, > allows that. (BUT fix it so we can’t change the road width on the fly; there > should be a 7-day countdown for road width changes. Otherwise: “Argh, I’m > over by .2lbs today… guess I’ll change my road width…”) > > Saving yourself on a given day > “Imagine your road is sloping down and you’re below it at first but you > weigh in every day at the same weight, 100kg. You’re on a collision course > with the road. After 9 days of 100kg each day, you find yourself on the > wrong side of the road. It’s an emergency day and you need to lose .5kg to > get back on.” > > Then you’ve already lost. > > If you have to try to lose weight in a day (when you’re going to be (and > OUGHT to be) putting food and water into your body from the moment you get > up), I think you’re in a bad place. I’m really leery of the idea of trying > to recover on any single given day. But that may be because of how I use my > weight goal. I use it to force me to tighten the behavour goals that result > in weight loss/maintenance (Daniel mentioned a few ideas later on in his > post) rather than as a “today” thing. If my weight’s not coming down, I need > to tweak some of my behavour goals, on penalty of derailing later. (For this > reason, I would love my weight goal to be set up with a 30-day akrasia > horizon, instead of a 7-day akrasia horizon.) > > I think having a weight loss goal without having behavioural goals is > symptomatic of the akratic problem when connected to weight loss. Weight > goals are fundamentally different from goals like getting more work done or > limiting TV hours, and the akratic problem for that type of goal is > different from the akratic problem for the “omgz just do a little of this > today you procrastinator” type goals. > > Real-time vs average > So… sometimes I talk of the world of the “ideal” about things that don’t > actually matter ~a ton~ to me. This is one of those cases. I really don’t > care that much whether the road is measuring individual datapoints or the > average, and I think the fact that it would mean making what might be some > pretty significant changes to Beeminder behind-the-scenes probably makes it > not worth it. The reason I would support it (in lieu of the auto-widening > roads) is for the unreasonable derailment cases (though, auto-widening roads > still didn’t fix many of the long-term, regular, legit derail cases). > > I believe very strongly that genuine “am not losing weight so am over today” > datapoints = you’ve already lost… pay the hell up. Weight goals are > think-ahead goals and we akratics need to learn that. Losing water by > running around or veggy fasting for a day is not a healthy solution, IMO. > You’ve already lost… pay up, go have a glass of water, a normal breakfast, > and make healthier choices this week. So, whether it’s impossible to move > the moving average down after that or not means nothing to me. What worries > me, are those days that are not representative of the true trend. If you are > genuinely on the right track, you shouldn’t be penalized for something like > water retention, pms retention, or other things best left to your > imagination. Auto-widening roads or using an average doesn’t ~really~ help > that, cause in the water-retention or pms cases, we’re probably looking at > several “above goal” days even if you’re actually doing well and even if > you’re losing fat during that time. > > I don’t really care how the goal is set up as long as it a) forces me to > plan my behaviour ~enough~ to meet my targets, b) doesn’t leave me thinking > about hitting the sauna to weigh in lower, c) doesn’t punish me for > non-representative changes. > > For me, a longer akrasia horizon for weight goals + some different way of > counting when a derail happens (whatever it is) that forgives spikes that > aren’t representative is enough to do that… whatever those details are. > > This is what I’ve done from time to time (and might do again… I’m sorry > Daniel, you’re going to hate this). I would enter my datapoints, but fail to > report my above the road points. If they were genuinely above the road b/c I > was actually failing, I would derail by not entering for several days and > running out of time. If they weren’t, I would pop back down before that > happened and the trend would continue just fine. This was fair, to me, b/c > it meant I wouldn’t be unfairly penalized… as long as the road was steep > enough to matter or the derail point was ~before~ the akrasia horizon. > Otherwise it’s too easy to change the road rate and never derail… > > The problem with that is that I lose the QM value. BUT, what if weight loss > goals were set with different derail conditions. This is off the top of my > head, so there might be stupid things I’m not thinking of hidden here: > > 1. Custom road width. (I want to earn the blue points, dammit! hehe. But > more importantly, I also think visual representation if someone is losing > ~too much~ weight is important. losing over 2-3lbs/week has gallbladder > implications, so someone who sets their road to 2lbs with 1 safe day and who > has a trend that is clearly steeper has a visual cue that they should eat a > little more to stay on the healthy side of their efforts. I realize these > are the minority cases, and not my own case, but it is one of the ways > Beeminder can help people who are a little overzealous about it to keep from > hurting themselves) > > 2. Users (more typical than those mentioned in 1) setting longer safe day > buffers (I like 14 because some of the legit spikes can be 10-days long but > can catch right back up afterwards; men might prefer something like 5-7 > days, all depending on personal patterns/medical considerations). See > attached as an example of what was a legit spike. > > 3. A farther akrasia horizon for this goal (I like 30 days, but it could be > a customizable value, maybe?… with changing that value subject to the > ~currently~ set akrasia horizon value so that I can’t just weasel), > > 4. (sorry) changing it so that it allows me to enter my above the line > points for QM purposes, but derails as though I hadn’t. Make it so that some > recent point matters, but not necessarily the most recent point. Maybe the > lowest day in the “max safe days” range. I.e., if I have a 10-day max safe > day range, then the lowest day in the last 10 days is what counts for > derailing. BUT, it doesn’t count as though it’s today’s point, it counts as > though I haven’t entered a point since. That way, if there fails to be > positive change in [max safe day range] number of days, I lose. (But count > the Hard caps by using today’s point and it’s distance from the point I need > to be back to when I need to be back on the road.) > > 5. Allow only 1 weight goal per user so that people don’t start using weight > goals in order to create “debts” for other kinds of goals. (“I’ll just > create a weight-type goal for my reading because then I can choose to catch > up if I don’t keep on track” ← FAIL!) > > This could allow users who know their legit fluctuation details to plan for > them with safety, but not to use their safety net too loosely. And, although > I get your point about akratics and the upper line or the road, weight goals > are just different. They can’t be treated like other goals b/c they’re just > not like other goals. Part of heading in the right direction is realizing > that and adapting to it, I think. AND if you want to treat it like other > goals then create it like another goal: custom goal for the no eating + > sauna win. > > Sorry for yet another way-too-long post! > > – > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > “Akratics Anonymous” group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [akratics+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com](mailto:akratics+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com). > For more options, visit [https://groups.google.com/groups/opt\_out](https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out). – [http://dreev.es](http://dreev.es) – search://“Daniel Reeves” Goal tracking + Commitment contracts == [http://beeminder.com](http://beeminder.com) ---
**Author:** ![Essentiae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dec6dc/32.png) [@Essentiae](https://forum.beeminder.com/u/Essentiae)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2013, 1:13am UTC](https://forum.beeminder.com/t/death-to-auto-widening-yellow-brick-roads/1440/20 "2013-08-10T01:13:18Z")
Yup, I meant QS. (“QM” is stuck in my mind from quantitative methods.) I don’t envy your task of trying to get the mechanics just right for this kind of goal. (Tough enough so that it doesn’t just allow… everything… but also not so tough that there’s a pms-tax, hehe.) If anyone’ll figure out how to do it fairly, though, it’s you guys. This is partly a user issue, too. I mean, if we want to track it only semi-harshly, we can always have it set up using the “don’t gain, maybe lose” method by having a nearly imperceptible road rate with a safety buffer just a little larger than the size of the largest safety buffer we’ll need. I mean, if this type of goal is different and we need to think about it differently… then… maybe ~we~ ought to think about it differently. Plan to lose/gain, Beemind the related _behaviours_ tightly (but reasonably), and if we bust through our safety zones at _that_point… well that’s on us. We get the QM value, we keep from going in the wrong direction or losing hard won gains, and you guys need less Advil. In a way, we may be kind of contradicting ourselves anyway: This kind of goal is different and we need to think of it differently… but I want to think of it the same so rig the graphs up so that I can do that and still not lose too badly. On the other, other hand, just spit-ballin’ a little more: You know how there’s a countdown for dropping back down from a higher pledge? Have a user-defined period in the settings (for this type of goal only) and a “this is an anomalous datapoint” button. Clicking it begins a countdown clock. You can’t derail while on the countdown clock, but you see that you’re over and need to be back down below the line before it runs out in 3/5/7/10/14/whatever days. If it’s a legit anomaly, you will be and all will be well. If it’s not, it’s just a delayed derailment. (I think that, in that case, quitting during your “time off” period should trigger the delayed derailment, and the akrasia horizon should be pushed to [7 + countdown time left] days (to prevent weaselling like archiving before your countdown time runs out or changing the road rate to weasel). Changing the number of days on the safety clock should also be subject to the akrasia horizon (maybe after the first month and the user is more familiar with individual patterns). Otherwise, the road works just like all other goals and is double the size of the road rate (or user-defined in custom… with changes subject to the akrasia horizon). On Thursday, August 8, 2013 11:58:53 PM UTC-4, Daniel Reeves wrote: > Quick clarification: You probably mean “QS” as in Quantified Self. > Were you thinking QM as in [quantified-mind.com](http://quantified-mind.com) ? > > And, yes, a common soap box of mine is that Beeminder should be > foremost a quantified self tool. So any hackery involving suppression > of data points or entering values that don’t correspond to an actual > thing being measured should be a non-starter. Actually I hugely > appreciate hearing about cases (like Essy not recording anomalously > high weights) where you’re tempted to deviate from the QS ideal > because (as with the case of auto-widening or smoothing or minding the > moving average, or whatever the answer to this problem is going to > be!) it tells us how we need to fix Beeminder to get rid of that > temptation. > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 6:21 AM, Essentiae \<[esse...@gmail.com](mailto:esse...@gmail.com) \\> > wrote: > > > Thin vs. wide roads > > “Remember that if you’re truly akratic then nothing really matters but > > the > > top edge of your yellow brick road. (If you’re not truly akratic then > > just > > stay comfortably below the road and ignore all this!) So I’m not buying > > the > > concern about a razor-thin road.” > > > > I think it’s right that it’s the top of the road that matters. That > > said, > > the yellow brick road provides valuable visual feedback on how you’re > > doing: > > when you’re in risky territory (orange), when you’re sailing smoothly > > (blue), and when you’re rockin’ it (green). Having only green and red > > points > > loses that valuable visual data, as well as the safety one has earned > > when > > getting onto a green point. Beeminder doesn’t just help akratics stop > > doing > > dumb $#!~ today, it also sort of teaches akratics the value of thinking > > and > > working ahead. I’ve certainly noticed a tendency to start thinking > > things > > like “I should get X goal above my road by a few days cause event Y is > > coming up and I don’t want to have to think about it during that time.” > > I’ve > > always ~thought~ that… but now I’m doing it with some goals cause I have > > a > > visual representation of my effort. That’s a fundamental shift. I think > > people who are doing better than their roads have “earned”, in a way, > > the > > feeling of safety on the green/blue side. So road width matters, IMO. I > > think custom road width for weight, if it’s not going to have > > auto-widening, > > allows that. (BUT fix it so we can’t change the road width on the fly; > > there > > should be a 7-day countdown for road width changes. Otherwise: “Argh, > > I’m > > over by .2lbs today… guess I’ll change my road width…”) > > > > Saving yourself on a given day > > “Imagine your road is sloping down and you’re below it at first but you > > weigh in every day at the same weight, 100kg. You’re on a collision > > course > > with the road. After 9 days of 100kg each day, you find yourself on the > > wrong side of the road. It’s an emergency day and you need to lose .5kg > > to > > get back on.” > > > > Then you’ve already lost. > > > > If you have to try to lose weight in a day (when you’re going to be (and > > OUGHT to be) putting food and water into your body from the moment you > > get > > up), I think you’re in a bad place. I’m really leery of the idea of > > trying > > to recover on any single given day. But that may be because of how I use > > my > > weight goal. I use it to force me to tighten the behavour goals that > > result > > in weight loss/maintenance (Daniel mentioned a few ideas later on in his > > post) rather than as a “today” thing. If my weight’s not coming down, I > > need > > to tweak some of my behavour goals, on penalty of derailing later. (For > > this > > reason, I would love my weight goal to be set up with a 30-day akrasia > > horizon, instead of a 7-day akrasia horizon.) > > > > I think having a weight loss goal without having behavioural goals is > > symptomatic of the akratic problem when connected to weight loss. Weight > > goals are fundamentally different from goals like getting more work done > > or > > limiting TV hours, and the akratic problem for that type of goal is > > different from the akratic problem for the “omgz just do a little of > > this > > today you procrastinator” type goals. > > > > Real-time vs average > > So… sometimes I talk of the world of the “ideal” about things that don’t > > actually matter ~a ton~ to me. This is one of those cases. I really > > don’t > > care that much whether the road is measuring individual datapoints or > > the > > average, and I think the fact that it would mean making what might be > > some > > pretty significant changes to Beeminder behind-the-scenes probably makes > > it > > not worth it. The reason I would support it (in lieu of the > > auto-widening > > roads) is for the unreasonable derailment cases (though, auto-widening > > roads > > still didn’t fix many of the long-term, regular, legit derail cases). > > > > I believe very strongly that genuine “am not losing weight so am over > > today” > > datapoints = you’ve already lost… pay the hell up. Weight goals are > > think-ahead goals and we akratics need to learn that. Losing water by > > running around or veggy fasting for a day is not a healthy solution, > > IMO. > > You’ve already lost… pay up, go have a glass of water, a normal > > breakfast, > > and make healthier choices this week. So, whether it’s impossible to > > move > > the moving average down after that or not means nothing to me. What > > worries > > me, are those days that are not representative of the true trend. If you > > are > > genuinely on the right track, you shouldn’t be penalized for something > > like > > water retention, pms retention, or other things best left to your > > imagination. Auto-widening roads or using an average doesn’t ~really~ > > help > > that, cause in the water-retention or pms cases, we’re probably looking > > at > > several “above goal” days even if you’re actually doing well and even if > > you’re losing fat during that time. > > > > I don’t really care how the goal is set up as long as it a) forces me to > > plan my behaviour ~enough~ to meet my targets, b) doesn’t leave me > > thinking > > about hitting the sauna to weigh in lower, c) doesn’t punish me for > > non-representative changes. > > > > For me, a longer akrasia horizon for weight goals + some different way > > of > > counting when a derail happens (whatever it is) that forgives spikes > > that > > aren’t representative is enough to do that… whatever those details are. > > > > This is what I’ve done from time to time (and might do again… I’m sorry > > Daniel, you’re going to hate this). I would enter my datapoints, but > > fail to > > report my above the road points. If they were genuinely above the road > > b/c I > > was actually failing, I would derail by not entering for several days > > and > > running out of time. If they weren’t, I would pop back down before that > > happened and the trend would continue just fine. This was fair, to me, > > b/c > > it meant I wouldn’t be unfairly penalized… as long as the road was steep > > enough to matter or the derail point was ~before~ the akrasia horizon. > > Otherwise it’s too easy to change the road rate and never derail… > > > > The problem with that is that I lose the QM value. BUT, what if weight > > loss > > goals were set with different derail conditions. This is off the top of > > my > > head, so there might be stupid things I’m not thinking of hidden here: > > > > 1. Custom road width. (I want to earn the blue points, dammit! hehe. But > > more importantly, I also think visual representation if someone is > > losing > > ~too much~ weight is important. losing over 2-3lbs/week has gallbladder > > implications, so someone who sets their road to 2lbs with 1 safe day and > > who > > has a trend that is clearly steeper has a visual cue that they should > > eat a > > little more to stay on the healthy side of their efforts. I realize > > these > > are the minority cases, and not my own case, but it is one of the ways > > Beeminder can help people who are a little overzealous about it to keep > > from > > hurting themselves) > > > > 2. Users (more typical than those mentioned in 1) setting longer safe > > day > > buffers (I like 14 because some of the legit spikes can be 10-days long > > but > > can catch right back up afterwards; men might prefer something like 5-7 > > days, all depending on personal patterns/medical considerations). See > > attached as an example of what was a legit spike. > > > > 3. A farther akrasia horizon for this goal (I like 30 days, but it could > > be > > a customizable value, maybe?… with changing that value subject to the > > ~currently~ set akrasia horizon value so that I can’t just weasel), > > > > 4. (sorry) changing it so that it allows me to enter my above the line > > points for QM purposes, but derails as though I hadn’t. Make it so that > > some > > recent point matters, but not necessarily the most recent point. Maybe > > the > > lowest day in the “max safe days” range. I.e., if I have a 10-day max > > safe > > day range, then the lowest day in the last 10 days is what counts for > > derailing. BUT, it doesn’t count as though it’s today’s point, it counts > > as > > though I haven’t entered a point since. That way, if there fails to be > > positive change in [max safe day range] number of days, I lose. (But > > count > > the Hard caps by using today’s point and it’s distance from the point I > > need > > to be back to when I need to be back on the road.) > > > > 5. Allow only 1 weight goal per user so that people don’t start using > > weight > > goals in order to create “debts” for other kinds of goals. (“I’ll just > > create a weight-type goal for my reading because then I can choose to > > catch > > up if I don’t keep on track” ← FAIL!) > > > > This could allow users who know their legit fluctuation details to plan > > for > > them with safety, but not to use their safety net too loosely. And, > > although > > I get your point about akratics and the upper line or the road, weight > > goals > > are just different. They can’t be treated like other goals b/c they’re > > just > > not like other goals. Part of heading in the right direction is > > realizing > > that and adapting to it, I think. AND if you want to treat it like other > > goals then create it like another goal: custom goal for the no eating + > > sauna win. > > > > Sorry for yet another way-too-long post! > > > > – > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups > > “Akratics Anonymous” group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > > an > > email to [akratics+u...@googlegroups.com](mailto:akratics+u...@googlegroups.com) \. > > For more options, visit [https://groups.google.com/groups/opt\_out](https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out). > > – > [http://dreev.es](http://dreev.es) – search://“Daniel Reeves” > Goal tracking + Commitment contracts == [http://beeminder.com](http://beeminder.com) [Next page](https://forum.beeminder.com/t/death-to-auto-widening-yellow-brick-roads/1440.md?page=2)