Can CFAR help raise the sanity waterline? Has curriculum been developed that can teach any of the cognitive tools to more than a handful of people at a time at workshops? Perhaps a MOOC or a franchise?
This question seems to assume that CFAR sees the impact of their workshops as being about successfully teaching cognitive tools. That doesn’t seem to be the case based on conversation I had in the past with CFAR folks.
The definition I got was “Making people more agenty about changing their thinking”. I’m not sure about the exact wording that was used. It might have been “feel agency” instead of being agenty and it might have been thinking habits instead of thinking, but that’s a gist that I remember from a conversation at LWCW.
Falk Lieder who runs an academic research group on applied rationality was asking what potential there’s for cooperating with CFAR to study the effectiveness of the techniques and the response was something along the lines of “CFAR doesn’t really care that much about the individual techniques, the only thing that might be interesting is to measure whether the whole CFAR workshop as a unit produces those agency changes”.
If any org has the goal of creating a strict list of cognitive tools who are individually powerful for helping people, cooperating with Falk to get academic backing both in terms of independent scientific authority and in terms of being more clear about the value of the cognitive tool would be valuable.
How does CFAR plan to scale its impact?
Can CFAR help raise the sanity waterline? Has curriculum been developed that can teach any of the cognitive tools to more than a handful of people at a time at workshops? Perhaps a MOOC or a franchise?
This question seems to assume that CFAR sees the impact of their workshops as being about successfully teaching cognitive tools. That doesn’t seem to be the case based on conversation I had in the past with CFAR folks.
What did that conversation cause you to think CFAR believes the impact of their workshops *is* about?
The definition I got was “Making people more agenty about changing their thinking”. I’m not sure about the exact wording that was used. It might have been “feel agency” instead of being agenty and it might have been thinking habits instead of thinking, but that’s a gist that I remember from a conversation at LWCW.
Falk Lieder who runs an academic research group on applied rationality was asking what potential there’s for cooperating with CFAR to study the effectiveness of the techniques and the response was something along the lines of “CFAR doesn’t really care that much about the individual techniques, the only thing that might be interesting is to measure whether the whole CFAR workshop as a unit produces those agency changes”.
If any org has the goal of creating a strict list of cognitive tools who are individually powerful for helping people, cooperating with Falk to get academic backing both in terms of independent scientific authority and in terms of being more clear about the value of the cognitive tool would be valuable.