It seems to me that CFAR engages into empiricism. They are trying to teach various different ways to make people more rational and they are willing to listen to the results and change teaching content and methods.
How do they measure whether they are actually making people more rational?
There are hundreds, maybe thousands self-help/personal development groups in the world. From the secular ones (e.g. Landmark, which is in some ways the spiritual ancestor of CFAR), to traditional religions, to mumbo jumbo new age stuff. From the “outside view”, how can I distinguish CFAR from these ones?
How do they measure whether they are actually making people more rational?
I think they did a bit of polling but I’m no good person to speak about the details. I haven’t attended one of their courses yet.
From the “outside view”, how can I distinguish CFAR from these ones?
A core difference is that CFAR intends to publish papers in the future that show effectiveness of techniques.
The others that you listed don’t. I also understand that doing work to getting techniques into a form were you can test them well in a study takes time.
In a lot of New Age frameworks there the belief that everything happens as it’s supposed to be. If a person get’s ill the day after a workshop, it’s because they are processing negative emotions or karma.
You can’t do any science when you assume that any possible outcome of an experiment is by definition a good outcome and the challenge is about trusting that it’s a good outcome.
The importance of trusting the process is also a core feature of traditional religion. If your prayer doesn’t seem to be working, it’s just because you don’t understand how god moves in mysterious ways.
Trust isn’t inherently bad but it prevents scientific learning.
I don’t know Landmarks position on trust and skepticism.
Landmark does practices like creating an expectation that participants invite guests to the Evening Session that I’m uncomfortable with. The might be effective recruiting tools but they feel culty.
How do they measure whether they are actually making people more rational?
There are hundreds, maybe thousands self-help/personal development groups in the world. From the secular ones (e.g. Landmark, which is in some ways the spiritual ancestor of CFAR), to traditional religions, to mumbo jumbo new age stuff. From the “outside view”, how can I distinguish CFAR from these ones?
I think they did a bit of polling but I’m no good person to speak about the details. I haven’t attended one of their courses yet.
A core difference is that CFAR intends to publish papers in the future that show effectiveness of techniques. The others that you listed don’t. I also understand that doing work to getting techniques into a form were you can test them well in a study takes time.
In a lot of New Age frameworks there the belief that everything happens as it’s supposed to be. If a person get’s ill the day after a workshop, it’s because they are processing negative emotions or karma. You can’t do any science when you assume that any possible outcome of an experiment is by definition a good outcome and the challenge is about trusting that it’s a good outcome.
The importance of trusting the process is also a core feature of traditional religion. If your prayer doesn’t seem to be working, it’s just because you don’t understand how god moves in mysterious ways. Trust isn’t inherently bad but it prevents scientific learning.
I don’t know Landmarks position on trust and skepticism.
Landmark does practices like creating an expectation that participants invite guests to the Evening Session that I’m uncomfortable with. The might be effective recruiting tools but they feel culty.