Asymmetric vs. symmetric tools is now one of the main frameworks that I use to think about rationality (although I wish we had better terminology for it). A rationality technique (as opposed to a productivity hack or a motivation trick or whatever) helps you get more done on something in cases where getting more done is a good idea.
This wasn’t a completely new idea when I read Scott’s post about it, but the post seems to have helped a lot with getting the framework to sink in.
In case no one who currently works at CFAR gets around to answering this (I was there from Oct 2015 to Oct 2018 in a pretty influential role but that means I haven’t been around for about fourteen months):
Meditations on Moloch is top of the list by a factor of perhaps four
Different Worlds as a runner up
Lots of social dynamic stuff/how groups work/how individuals move within groups:
Edit: more helpfully, I found it valuable for thinking about rationality and thinking about CFAR from a strategic perspective—what it was, what it should be, what problems it was up against, how it interfaced with the rest of society.
In other threads on this post, Brienne and others describe themselves as doing research, so CFAR seems to be doing both. Math research and teaching math are a bit different. Although I am also interested to know of SSC posts that were helpful for developing curriculum.
All you were saying was “That’s not the question that was asked, so … no.” so I’m sorry if I had to guess and ask. Not sure what I’ve missed by ‘not focusing’.
I see you’ve added both an edit after my comment and then this response, as wellwhich is a bit odd.
In general, if you don’t understand what someone is saying, it’s better to ask “what do you mean?” than to say “are you saying [unrelated thing that does not at all emerge from what they said]??” with double punctuation.
What’s a SlateStarCodex posts you have thought a lot about while thinking about rationality / CFAR?
(This is Dan from CFAR)
Guided By The Beauty Of Our Weapons
Asymmetric vs. symmetric tools is now one of the main frameworks that I use to think about rationality (although I wish we had better terminology for it). A rationality technique (as opposed to a productivity hack or a motivation trick or whatever) helps you get more done on something in cases where getting more done is a good idea.
This wasn’t a completely new idea when I read Scott’s post about it, but the post seems to have helped a lot with getting the framework to sink in.
In case no one who currently works at CFAR gets around to answering this (I was there from Oct 2015 to Oct 2018 in a pretty influential role but that means I haven’t been around for about fourteen months):
Meditations on Moloch is top of the list by a factor of perhaps four
Different Worlds as a runner up
Lots of social dynamic stuff/how groups work/how individuals move within groups:
Social Justice and Words, Words, Words
I Can Tolerate Anything Except The Outgroup
Guided By The Beauty Of Our Weapons
Yes, We Have Noticed The Skulls
Book Review: Surfing Uncertainty
Is that post really that much more relevant than everything else for TEACHING rationality? How come?
That’s not the question that was asked, so … no.
Edit: more helpfully, I found it valuable for thinking about rationality and thinking about CFAR from a strategic perspective—what it was, what it should be, what problems it was up against, how it interfaced with the rest of society.
You are saying those 2 aren’t the same goal?? Even approximately? Isn’t CFAR roughly a ‘teaching rationality’ organization?
In other threads on this post, Brienne and others describe themselves as doing research, so CFAR seems to be doing both. Math research and teaching math are a bit different. Although I am also interested to know of SSC posts that were helpful for developing curriculum.
I’m not saying that, either.
I request that you stop jumping to wild conclusions and putting words in people’s mouths, and focus on what they are actually saying.
All you were saying was “That’s not the question that was asked, so … no.” so I’m sorry if I had to guess and ask. Not sure what I’ve missed by ‘not focusing’.
I see you’ve added both an edit after my comment and then this response, as wellwhich is a bit odd.
In general, if you don’t understand what someone is saying, it’s better to ask “what do you mean?” than to say “are you saying [unrelated thing that does not at all emerge from what they said]??” with double punctuation.