Hi, Anna. The post was very interesting, and I’d be happy to do some ‘kibitzing’ (had to check the word’s meaning, actually), even if I give low credence that anything I’ll say might be of use.
I am a relatively late arriver to the world of Rationalism (from about 3 years ago or so), having gone through some of the usual suspects (Julia Galef’s Scout Mindset and her podcasts; Chivers’ book on Rationalism; HPMOR and some online posts from Scott Alexander; some CFAR materials online, and some youtube videos; not much Less Wrong or The Sequences though, until now). What attracted me to it was my quasi-religious attachment for truth-seeking and for avoiding self-deception, and my desire to become more rational in my thinking and decision-making. I am still reading and exploring. You might remember that I’ve been one of the assistants to the CFAR test sessions, and would be interested in the future in going a workshop if it doesn’t entail having to go across the Atlantic (I live in rural, NW Spain).
Through my eyes, CFAR seems like a group of people who are engaged in the sort of ‘right thinking’ I aspire to (LW also; perhaps the distinction from the outside is that CFAR seems to be a more educational-oriented project in practice).
A lot of what I see in the test sessions I find confusing, but I don’t think it’s from any fault of yours. They aren’t workshops, and I feel a lot of uncanny valley-ness in that I recognize most of the ideas and terms but haven’t really interiorized their meaning. Also, the only correlate your practice brings to mind is something like talk-therapy which, while pretty common in the States, is really unusual over here (the only, and very few people I know who have engaged in something like it do it with psychologists and for medical reasons). This isn’t a criticism so much as a cultural translation problem: from where I sit, it’s not always clear how to distinguish applied rationality coaching from therapeutic modes of engagement, and that makes it harder to know what norms to bring.
I think it would help me a lot to actually go in detail over some of the material you have online (particularly, the CFAR Handbook). I think I just mostly lack the grammar of how these things are supposed to be done.
‘Hope for something out loud’: I’d hope for a chance in the not-too-remote future to take once of your workshops this side of the ocean. ‘Try to speak to why you care rather than rounding to the nearest conceptual category’: as I said, I care really personally about truth-finding, truth-seeking and being part of an expanding circle of people who share this frame of mind, which makes me see your efforts, whatever they end up producing, as merit-worthy. And that’s why I care enough to watch closely how this iteration of CFAR actually plays out.
Hi, Anna. The post was very interesting, and I’d be happy to do some ‘kibitzing’ (had to check the word’s meaning, actually), even if I give low credence that anything I’ll say might be of use.
I am a relatively late arriver to the world of Rationalism (from about 3 years ago or so), having gone through some of the usual suspects (Julia Galef’s Scout Mindset and her podcasts; Chivers’ book on Rationalism; HPMOR and some online posts from Scott Alexander; some CFAR materials online, and some youtube videos; not much Less Wrong or The Sequences though, until now). What attracted me to it was my quasi-religious attachment for truth-seeking and for avoiding self-deception, and my desire to become more rational in my thinking and decision-making. I am still reading and exploring. You might remember that I’ve been one of the assistants to the CFAR test sessions, and would be interested in the future in going a workshop if it doesn’t entail having to go across the Atlantic (I live in rural, NW Spain).
Through my eyes, CFAR seems like a group of people who are engaged in the sort of ‘right thinking’ I aspire to (LW also; perhaps the distinction from the outside is that CFAR seems to be a more educational-oriented project in practice).
A lot of what I see in the test sessions I find confusing, but I don’t think it’s from any fault of yours. They aren’t workshops, and I feel a lot of uncanny valley-ness in that I recognize most of the ideas and terms but haven’t really interiorized their meaning. Also, the only correlate your practice brings to mind is something like talk-therapy which, while pretty common in the States, is really unusual over here (the only, and very few people I know who have engaged in something like it do it with psychologists and for medical reasons). This isn’t a criticism so much as a cultural translation problem: from where I sit, it’s not always clear how to distinguish applied rationality coaching from therapeutic modes of engagement, and that makes it harder to know what norms to bring.
I think it would help me a lot to actually go in detail over some of the material you have online (particularly, the CFAR Handbook). I think I just mostly lack the grammar of how these things are supposed to be done.
‘Hope for something out loud’: I’d hope for a chance in the not-too-remote future to take once of your workshops this side of the ocean. ‘Try to speak to why you care rather than rounding to the nearest conceptual category’: as I said, I care really personally about truth-finding, truth-seeking and being part of an expanding circle of people who share this frame of mind, which makes me see your efforts, whatever they end up producing, as merit-worthy. And that’s why I care enough to watch closely how this iteration of CFAR actually plays out.