What are you looking for, exactly? The cognitive biases that CFAR teaches about and tries to help mitigate have been well known in social psychology and cognitive science for decades.
It’s also well known in cognitive science that mitigating biases is hard. Having studies that prove that CFAR interventions work is important for the long term.
Keith Stanovich (who’s a CFAR advisor) got a million dollar (or $999,376 to be exact) from the John Templeton Foundation to create a rationality quotient test that measures rationality in the same way we have tests for IQ.
If CFAR workshops work to increase the rationality of their participants, that score should go up.
trying to find improvements that result in real practical benefits is part of what CFAR tries to do.
The fact that you try doesn’t mean that you succeed and various people in the personal development field also try to find improvements that result in real practical benefits.
But the fact that they’re specifically approaching areas of self-improvement that come from well documented to be genuinely real-world phenomena like cognitive biases makes them clearly significantly different to those that are centred around less sound ideas, for example, gods or universal quantum consciousness.
In Willpower psychology professor Roy Baumeister makes the argument that the God idea is useful for raising Willpower.
Mormons have been found to look healtier.
It’s only misleading if you take it out of context.
I do argue in this thread that CFAR is a promising organisation. I didn’t say that CFAR is bad because they haven’t provided this proof.
I wanted to illustrate that meaningful proof of effectiveness is possible and should happen in the next years.
The fact that CFAR is unable to do this till now because of unavailability of the test doesn’t mean that there’s proof that CFAR manages to raise rationality.
I also don’t know the exact relationship between Stanovich and CFAR and to what extend his involvement in CFAR is more than having his name on the CFAR advisor page.
Giving CFAR participants a bunch of questions that he considers to be potentially usefully for measuring rationality could be part of his effort to develop a rationality test.
The text being publically available isn’t a necessary condition for a version of the text being used inside CFAR.
It’s also well known in cognitive science that mitigating biases is hard. Having studies that prove that CFAR interventions work is important for the long term.
Keith Stanovich (who’s a CFAR advisor) got a million dollar (or $999,376 to be exact) from the John Templeton Foundation to create a rationality quotient test that measures rationality in the same way we have tests for IQ.
If CFAR workshops work to increase the rationality of their participants, that score should go up.
The fact that you try doesn’t mean that you succeed and various people in the personal development field also try to find improvements that result in real practical benefits.
In Willpower psychology professor Roy Baumeister makes the argument that the God idea is useful for raising Willpower. Mormons have been found to look healtier.
That is an extremely misleading sentence. CFAR cannot give Stanovich’s test to their students because the test does not yet exist.
It’s only misleading if you take it out of context.
I do argue in this thread that CFAR is a promising organisation. I didn’t say that CFAR is bad because they haven’t provided this proof.
I wanted to illustrate that meaningful proof of effectiveness is possible and should happen in the next years.
The fact that CFAR is unable to do this till now because of unavailability of the test doesn’t mean that there’s proof that CFAR manages to raise rationality.
I also don’t know the exact relationship between Stanovich and CFAR and to what extend his involvement in CFAR is more than having his name on the CFAR advisor page. Giving CFAR participants a bunch of questions that he considers to be potentially usefully for measuring rationality could be part of his effort to develop a rationality test.
The text being publically available isn’t a necessary condition for a version of the text being used inside CFAR.