I take my guess from what I know by speaking with CFAR people. An answer from CFAR directly would likely tell you more.
The goal of a CFAR workshop is not just teaching individual techniques but giving people agency about how the think. The shared group spirit helps with that. That sense of being together is less strong with an online event and thus it’s harder to reach people at that deep level.
I agree that for some people physical contact (like hugs, handshaking etc.) indeed means a lot. However, it is not for everyone. Moreover, even if the online workshop is less effective due to lack of this spirit, is it indeed so ineffective that it is worse than no workshop at all? Finally, why just not to try? It sounds like a thing that should be tried at least one time, and if it fails—well, then we see that it fails.
Yes, I hope someone who attended CFAR (or even somehow related to it) would see this question and give their answer.
I don’t think just attending it would allow someone to answer better. A good answer would come from someone who actually speaks for CFAR.
Moreover, even if the online workshop is less effective due to lack of this spirit, is it indeed so ineffective that it is worse than no workshop at all?
When I was talking to Valentine (head of curriculum design at the time) a while ago he said that the spirit is the most important thing about the workshop.
“When I was talking to Valentine (head of curriculum design at the time) a while ago he said that the spirit is the most important thing about the workshop.”
Now, this already sounds a little bit disturbing and resembling Lifespring. Of course, the spirit is important, but I thought the workshop is going to arm us with instruments we can use in real life, not only in the emotional state of comradeship with like-minded rationalists.
When asked whether CFAR wanted to collaborate of scientifically validating their instruments, the answer I heard was that CFAR doesn’t because it doesn’t consider the instruments of central importance but considers giving people agency about changing their own thinking process of central importance.
There are many aspects of Lifespring. If I look at the Wikipedia page it suggests that they tried to maximize the amount of people enrolled to lifespring seminars. You complain that CFAR doesn’t do enough to maximize the amount of people who are exposed to CFAR content.
As I understand Lifespring tries to sell people more couses after they completed their first training. CFAR is not setup to sell you more courses after you went to the 4 day workshop.
Teaching people instruments does relatively little if people don’t use them. Teaching people agency means that they won’t only use the instruments taught at the workshop but also ways of thinking they make up themselves.
After leaving CFAR Julia Galef wrote the Scout Mindset because she believes that the mindset people have is of critical importance. The Solider Mindset/Scout Mindset isn’t directly about what CFAR is about but it falls in the same category of mental shifts. If you could have a 4 day workshop that would turn someone who’s mostly in Soldier Mindset into a person that’s mostly in Scout Mindset that would be valuable.
You could cluster workshop that change people the mindset of people in a deep way with Lifespring, but that cluster ignores a lot of what’s problematic about Lifespring that doesn’t exist the same way in CFAR. Generally, I don’t think a workshop that doesn’t work on that deep level is worth the kind of money that CFAR charges.
Basically, I am trying to figure out for myself if going to the workshop would be beneficial for me. I do believe that CFAR does not simply try to get as much money as possible. However, I am concerned that people after the workshop are strongly biased towards liking it not because it really helps, but because of psychological mechanisms akin to Lifespring. I am not saying that CFAR is doing it intentionally, it could just have been raised somehow on its own. Maybe these mechanisms are even beneficial to whatever CFAR is doing, but they definitely make evaluation harder.
CFAR once did an experiment (not sure whether they keep doing it) where they gave questionnaires to people who participated in their workshops and to the control group (people who wanted to participate, but were not selected because of limited space). Part of the questionnaire was evaluated by other people, nominated by the participants as someone who knows them; if I remember correctly they were asked questions immediately before the workshop, and one year later. Not sure where the results are published.
Seems to me that your question is mostly about how to distinguish between “participants became more productive/rational/whatever after the workshop” and “participants liked the workshop a lot”, as both could lead to good feedback. That is a valid question.
But mentioning Lifespring repeatedly just makes it unnecessarily confrontational, considering that “they do workshops, but no online workshops” is pretty much all these two organizations have in common; in many other aspects they seem to be the opposite of each other. If you have specific concerns whether CFAR does some specific bad actions, it would be better to ask directly “does CFAR do X, Y, and Z?”. For example (looking at the Wikipedia page about Lifespring), “does CFAR physically prevent participants from leaving the workshop?” or “how many participants have died during a CFAR workshop?” Here the answers are “no” and “zero” respectively. Whatever are CFAR’s true reasons for not doing online workshops, torturing and killing people are not among them.
Frankly, I would also like to see more people making CFAR workshops in various ways. But it is not my place to tell them how to use their limited resources. I participated in one of those workshops, so in theory, I should be able to review my notes and make a workshop myself. I am just too lazy (ahem, time-constrained) to do that. Also, CFAR probably wouldn’t be happy about it, because one of their fears is that someone will provide a shitty version of their workshop, people will participate there and write negative reviews, the misinterpreted version of the lessons will spread online, and then people will would otherwise have participared in the genuine CFAR workshops will now avoid them. But it’s not like they could actually stop me; the thing actually stopping me is my laziness.
It would be very interesting to look at the results of this experiment in more detail.
Yes, maybe I explained what I mean not very well; however, gjm (see commentaries below) seems to get it. The point is not that CFAR is very much like Lifespring (though I may have sounded like that), the point is that there are certain techniques (team spirit, deep emotional connections etc.) that are likely to be used in such workshops, that will most certainly make participants love workshop and organizers (and other participants) , but their effect on the participant’s life can be significantly weaker than their emotional change of mind. These techniques work sufficiently worse for the online workshops, so this was one of the reason I tried to understand why CFAR does not hold online workshops. Another reason was resentment towards CFAR for not doing it, for it would be much more convenient to me.
I take my guess from what I know by speaking with CFAR people. An answer from CFAR directly would likely tell you more.
The goal of a CFAR workshop is not just teaching individual techniques but giving people agency about how the think. The shared group spirit helps with that. That sense of being together is less strong with an online event and thus it’s harder to reach people at that deep level.
I agree that for some people physical contact (like hugs, handshaking etc.) indeed means a lot. However, it is not for everyone. Moreover, even if the online workshop is less effective due to lack of this spirit, is it indeed so ineffective that it is worse than no workshop at all? Finally, why just not to try? It sounds like a thing that should be tried at least one time, and if it fails—well, then we see that it fails.
Yes, I hope someone who attended CFAR (or even somehow related to it) would see this question and give their answer.
I don’t think just attending it would allow someone to answer better. A good answer would come from someone who actually speaks for CFAR.
When I was talking to Valentine (head of curriculum design at the time) a while ago he said that the spirit is the most important thing about the workshop.
“When I was talking to Valentine (head of curriculum design at the time) a while ago he said that the spirit is the most important thing about the workshop.”
Now, this already sounds a little bit disturbing and resembling Lifespring. Of course, the spirit is important, but I thought the workshop is going to arm us with instruments we can use in real life, not only in the emotional state of comradeship with like-minded rationalists.
The particular instruments are not the point.
When asked whether CFAR wanted to collaborate of scientifically validating their instruments, the answer I heard was that CFAR doesn’t because it doesn’t consider the instruments of central importance but considers giving people agency about changing their own thinking process of central importance.
There are many aspects of Lifespring. If I look at the Wikipedia page it suggests that they tried to maximize the amount of people enrolled to lifespring seminars. You complain that CFAR doesn’t do enough to maximize the amount of people who are exposed to CFAR content.
As I understand Lifespring tries to sell people more couses after they completed their first training. CFAR is not setup to sell you more courses after you went to the 4 day workshop.
Teaching people instruments does relatively little if people don’t use them. Teaching people agency means that they won’t only use the instruments taught at the workshop but also ways of thinking they make up themselves.
After leaving CFAR Julia Galef wrote the Scout Mindset because she believes that the mindset people have is of critical importance. The Solider Mindset/Scout Mindset isn’t directly about what CFAR is about but it falls in the same category of mental shifts. If you could have a 4 day workshop that would turn someone who’s mostly in Soldier Mindset into a person that’s mostly in Scout Mindset that would be valuable.
You could cluster workshop that change people the mindset of people in a deep way with Lifespring, but that cluster ignores a lot of what’s problematic about Lifespring that doesn’t exist the same way in CFAR. Generally, I don’t think a workshop that doesn’t work on that deep level is worth the kind of money that CFAR charges.
Ok, your point makes sense.
Basically, I am trying to figure out for myself if going to the workshop would be beneficial for me. I do believe that CFAR does not simply try to get as much money as possible. However, I am concerned that people after the workshop are strongly biased towards liking it not because it really helps, but because of psychological mechanisms akin to Lifespring. I am not saying that CFAR is doing it intentionally, it could just have been raised somehow on its own. Maybe these mechanisms are even beneficial to whatever CFAR is doing, but they definitely make evaluation harder.
CFAR once did an experiment (not sure whether they keep doing it) where they gave questionnaires to people who participated in their workshops and to the control group (people who wanted to participate, but were not selected because of limited space). Part of the questionnaire was evaluated by other people, nominated by the participants as someone who knows them; if I remember correctly they were asked questions immediately before the workshop, and one year later. Not sure where the results are published.
Seems to me that your question is mostly about how to distinguish between “participants became more productive/rational/whatever after the workshop” and “participants liked the workshop a lot”, as both could lead to good feedback. That is a valid question.
But mentioning Lifespring repeatedly just makes it unnecessarily confrontational, considering that “they do workshops, but no online workshops” is pretty much all these two organizations have in common; in many other aspects they seem to be the opposite of each other. If you have specific concerns whether CFAR does some specific bad actions, it would be better to ask directly “does CFAR do X, Y, and Z?”. For example (looking at the Wikipedia page about Lifespring), “does CFAR physically prevent participants from leaving the workshop?” or “how many participants have died during a CFAR workshop?” Here the answers are “no” and “zero” respectively. Whatever are CFAR’s true reasons for not doing online workshops, torturing and killing people are not among them.
Frankly, I would also like to see more people making CFAR workshops in various ways. But it is not my place to tell them how to use their limited resources. I participated in one of those workshops, so in theory, I should be able to review my notes and make a workshop myself. I am just too lazy (ahem, time-constrained) to do that. Also, CFAR probably wouldn’t be happy about it, because one of their fears is that someone will provide a shitty version of their workshop, people will participate there and write negative reviews, the misinterpreted version of the lessons will spread online, and then people will would otherwise have participared in the genuine CFAR workshops will now avoid them. But it’s not like they could actually stop me; the thing actually stopping me is my laziness.
It would be very interesting to look at the results of this experiment in more detail.
Yes, maybe I explained what I mean not very well; however, gjm (see commentaries below) seems to get it. The point is not that CFAR is very much like Lifespring (though I may have sounded like that), the point is that there are certain techniques (team spirit, deep emotional connections etc.) that are likely to be used in such workshops, that will most certainly make participants love workshop and organizers (and other participants) , but their effect on the participant’s life can be significantly weaker than their emotional change of mind. These techniques work sufficiently worse for the online workshops, so this was one of the reason I tried to understand why CFAR does not hold online workshops. Another reason was resentment towards CFAR for not doing it, for it would be much more convenient to me.