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.
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.