As far as I understand CFAR plans to publish written material on their website that details their theory of how things sit together. Maybe as soon as the end of this year.
CFAR is quite willing to let workshop attendees be able to spread what they learn to other people. Nobody is encouraged to keep things secret but to spread knowledge. At both LW community camp in Berlin a large chunk of the material was CFAR based.
When it comes to the question of whether to speak about mindfulness or againstness, it reminds me of Jay A. Labinger:
The language you use to talk about something influences the way you think about it. If the chemistry you’re talking about is truly something new, then a fight over terminology may be quite an important part of getting to understand that chemistry better.
When I search for a definition of againstness on LW I found:
“The relevant CFAR unit is called “againstness.” You can think of sympathetic dominance as related to (being?) a sensation of “againstness,” e.g. when you get angry during a heated argument your feelings are directed against the person you’re arguing with. ”
Certainly the word mindfulness is not about getting angry. Being mindful allows you to recognize that you are angry but if you focus on teaching mindfulness the focus is different. The results will also be different.
Hopping is a much shorter phrase then “reference class forecasting”. If you want to get people to actually do it instead of talking about it, it useful to have short terms for concepts.
If you want people to adopt a new behavior that they currently don’t do, it’s useful to have a new word for it. If you just use old words people nod that they agree and then don’t change behavior.
I disagree. CFARs(and the sequences) tendency to rename and reinvent things is significantly harmful as it makes it much harder to use the existing bodies of research, books, and anecdotes to enhance your practice of them.
The mission of CFAR isn’t to summarize existing research but to reinvent the wheel. To go on to build better wheels.
For that mission the act of taking techniques apart and reinventing them is vital.
For that mission it’s helpful if people at workshops are in beginner’s mind and don’t say: “I already know what you are talking about because I already know label X”.
Take the word ‘rational’ as use on LW. The word exists outside of LW. That means it should be easy to understand LW’lers when they use the term?
No, because the term means something different on LW than it means outside.
Naming isn’t easy. Of course there are bad names both in the sequences and in CFAR, but that doesn’t mean that it’s always a bad choice to use a new name.
Inventing new terms makes it easier to actually align the listener and speaker and both understand the word the same way.
That’s a silly mission. There’s already a ton of AWESOME wheels out there from psychology research, the self help movement, religious practices, and others. The short term goal shouldn’t be to build a new wheel, it should be experiment and figure out which of the existing wheels actually role. Once that’s done, you can go about inventing new techniques, but starting from scratch is just a silly way to go about it.
If someone is asking a lot of money just to teach old techniques under a new name, that… doesn’t seem right. Even if the students are told in the textbook that the technique is actually old and known—are they told it before they pay for the lessons? Are they told it openly at the beginning, or is it just a tiny footnote on page 98?
On the other hand, if the technique is not exactly the same, and CFAR believes that the modifications provide a significant bonus, then maybe the new name is deserved. Perhaps also if the old name is so inconvenient that people have problems remembering it and connecting the label with the referent. Also, sometimes there exist so many versions of some old technique, that the label doesn’t connect to anything specific (ask all those people who “meditate” what precisely they do; everyone seems to use this word however they wish).
Having to reinvent old techniques seems like not doing your homework. (How many other old techniques are you going to reinvent in the next five years? How much funding do you need for that?)
I can imagine CFAR having good reasons for what they do. But I can also imagine them to suffer a “rationalist” arrogant version of Dunning–Kruger effect; something like: “Oh, I am so rational that I absolutely do not have to pay attention to the domain experts, because there is absolutely nothing I could learn from them, it’s all just mumbo-jumbo… now let me think and invent my own mumbo-jumbo which will be more rational, because a more rational person—albeit a total beginner in the domain—invented it”. (I am working at the frontiers of science / You are doing pseudoscience / They are superstitious.)
I would need more specific data to make a conclusion here. Looking forward to a public textbook.
If someone is asking a lot of money just to teach old techniques under a new name, that… doesn’t seem right. Even if the students are told in the textbook that the technique is actually old and known—are they told it before they pay for the lessons?
That assumes that the main point of the lesson is to teach specific techniques. That doesn’t seem to be the case from what I understand by talking to Val about CFAR’s strategy at the LW community camp in Berlin (I wasn’t at an actual CFAR workshop).
Oh, I am so rational that I absolutely do not have to pay attention to the domain experts, because there is absolutely nothing
CFAR does happen a bunch of scientists who are domain experts in their advisory council. They read scientific papers. I don’t think it’s fair to say that they “pay no attention to the domain experts”.
albeit a total beginner in the domain—invented it
What makes you think that the CFAR folks are total beginners?
There’s already a ton of AWESOME wheels out there from psychology research, the self help movement, religious practices, and others.
Are you really suggesting CFAR should pick up techniques from religious practices and import them as is without reinventing them and stripping out all the paranormal stuff?
In terms of religious practices, I think CFAR could play the same role that EG The Center For Mindfulness does at UMASS Medical Center. They figure out which wheels from zen practices actually role, and which don’t.
Yes.
As far as I understand CFAR plans to publish written material on their website that details their theory of how things sit together. Maybe as soon as the end of this year.
CFAR is quite willing to let workshop attendees be able to spread what they learn to other people. Nobody is encouraged to keep things secret but to spread knowledge. At both LW community camp in Berlin a large chunk of the material was CFAR based.
When it comes to the question of whether to speak about mindfulness or againstness, it reminds me of Jay A. Labinger:
When I search for a definition of againstness on LW I found:
Certainly the word mindfulness is not about getting angry. Being mindful allows you to recognize that you are angry but if you focus on teaching mindfulness the focus is different. The results will also be different.
Hopping is a much shorter phrase then “reference class forecasting”. If you want to get people to actually do it instead of talking about it, it useful to have short terms for concepts.
If you want people to adopt a new behavior that they currently don’t do, it’s useful to have a new word for it. If you just use old words people nod that they agree and then don’t change behavior.
I disagree. CFARs(and the sequences) tendency to rename and reinvent things is significantly harmful as it makes it much harder to use the existing bodies of research, books, and anecdotes to enhance your practice of them.
The mission of CFAR isn’t to summarize existing research but to reinvent the wheel. To go on to build better wheels. For that mission the act of taking techniques apart and reinventing them is vital.
For that mission it’s helpful if people at workshops are in beginner’s mind and don’t say: “I already know what you are talking about because I already know label X”.
Take the word ‘rational’ as use on LW. The word exists outside of LW. That means it should be easy to understand LW’lers when they use the term? No, because the term means something different on LW than it means outside.
Naming isn’t easy. Of course there are bad names both in the sequences and in CFAR, but that doesn’t mean that it’s always a bad choice to use a new name. Inventing new terms makes it easier to actually align the listener and speaker and both understand the word the same way.
That’s a silly mission. There’s already a ton of AWESOME wheels out there from psychology research, the self help movement, religious practices, and others. The short term goal shouldn’t be to build a new wheel, it should be experiment and figure out which of the existing wheels actually role. Once that’s done, you can go about inventing new techniques, but starting from scratch is just a silly way to go about it.
If someone is asking a lot of money just to teach old techniques under a new name, that… doesn’t seem right. Even if the students are told in the textbook that the technique is actually old and known—are they told it before they pay for the lessons? Are they told it openly at the beginning, or is it just a tiny footnote on page 98?
On the other hand, if the technique is not exactly the same, and CFAR believes that the modifications provide a significant bonus, then maybe the new name is deserved. Perhaps also if the old name is so inconvenient that people have problems remembering it and connecting the label with the referent. Also, sometimes there exist so many versions of some old technique, that the label doesn’t connect to anything specific (ask all those people who “meditate” what precisely they do; everyone seems to use this word however they wish).
Having to reinvent old techniques seems like not doing your homework. (How many other old techniques are you going to reinvent in the next five years? How much funding do you need for that?)
I can imagine CFAR having good reasons for what they do. But I can also imagine them to suffer a “rationalist” arrogant version of Dunning–Kruger effect; something like: “Oh, I am so rational that I absolutely do not have to pay attention to the domain experts, because there is absolutely nothing I could learn from them, it’s all just mumbo-jumbo… now let me think and invent my own mumbo-jumbo which will be more rational, because a more rational person—albeit a total beginner in the domain—invented it”. (I am working at the frontiers of science / You are doing pseudoscience / They are superstitious.)
I would need more specific data to make a conclusion here. Looking forward to a public textbook.
That assumes that the main point of the lesson is to teach specific techniques. That doesn’t seem to be the case from what I understand by talking to Val about CFAR’s strategy at the LW community camp in Berlin (I wasn’t at an actual CFAR workshop).
CFAR does happen a bunch of scientists who are domain experts in their advisory council. They read scientific papers. I don’t think it’s fair to say that they “pay no attention to the domain experts”.
What makes you think that the CFAR folks are total beginners?
Are you really suggesting CFAR should pick up techniques from religious practices and import them as is without reinventing them and stripping out all the paranormal stuff?
In terms of religious practices, I think CFAR could play the same role that EG The Center For Mindfulness does at UMASS Medical Center. They figure out which wheels from zen practices actually role, and which don’t.