That’s fine as an issue about writing this as just the second half, but my point was that the ideas in the second half do seem useful, and worth figuring out a good way to present these ideas as a “`rationality as a practice” sequence.
That is, most of them AREN’T ambiguous or bottle-necked by evidence in the same way. There is an argument that they can help, and little reason I see to worry that they are harmful, so they are worth having more people try. Once that is done, and they report their subjective impressions to see what works for people, others can consider if and how it can be validated with more rigorous evidence.
I should have phrased my previous comment as a question—what do you see as valuable about the second half without the first half?
Maybe I can mostly answer that question for myself, though.
“Developing Ideas” is related to the first half, but it’s in an inventive frame—so confabulation is much less of a concern. (But we might similarly doubt it and ask for empirical support.)
“Inner Sim” has separate validation presumably (although I haven’t looked into this).
The motivated cognition section?
“Correcting Yourself” has a pretty obvious story about why it should be useful.
Explaining things to others is very generally observed to be useful, and the connection I make to the first half could be seen as spurious or at least not particularly important.
The question of how to do gears thinking more and better is just pretty important all around. But I think my particular remarks are not any more empirically validated than the memory stuff I mentioned.
Understanding others—same as gears. Important, but not a lot to back up my remarks.
I think what I’m going to do is post a question about what could/should go into such a sequence.
That’s fine as an issue about writing this as just the second half, but my point was that the ideas in the second half do seem useful, and worth figuring out a good way to present these ideas as a “`rationality as a practice” sequence.
That is, most of them AREN’T ambiguous or bottle-necked by evidence in the same way. There is an argument that they can help, and little reason I see to worry that they are harmful, so they are worth having more people try. Once that is done, and they report their subjective impressions to see what works for people, others can consider if and how it can be validated with more rigorous evidence.
I should have phrased my previous comment as a question—what do you see as valuable about the second half without the first half?
Maybe I can mostly answer that question for myself, though.
“Developing Ideas” is related to the first half, but it’s in an inventive frame—so confabulation is much less of a concern. (But we might similarly doubt it and ask for empirical support.)
“Inner Sim” has separate validation presumably (although I haven’t looked into this).
The motivated cognition section?
“Correcting Yourself” has a pretty obvious story about why it should be useful.
Explaining things to others is very generally observed to be useful, and the connection I make to the first half could be seen as spurious or at least not particularly important.
The question of how to do gears thinking more and better is just pretty important all around. But I think my particular remarks are not any more empirically validated than the memory stuff I mentioned.
Understanding others—same as gears. Important, but not a lot to back up my remarks.
I think what I’m going to do is post a question about what could/should go into such a sequence.