I’m uncomfortable with the idea of measuring aspects of rationality with checklists of specific mental habits, especially when the benefits of these habits are unproven.
is “unproven” the right yardstick? I don’t know if you’re making this mistake, but in our discussions of the efficacy of one or other part of rationality training it sometimes feels as if some people are asking “does the evidence permit us to believe” while others ask “does the evidence compel us to believe”. The whole business of training in modern rationality is very new. It’s unlikely anyone is very good at it yet, and it would be astonishing if we had really compelling evidence that someone was. It’s good to ask how we can learn more about whether this is any good, but it’s also OK to assess it on the balance of probabilities.
How do you assess the balance of probabilities in this case? If you go around asking people which mental habits help them in their day-to-day lives, you’ll probably find that prayer is more effective than the OP’s checklist. Or is there some more tangible evidence?
Can we flesh out what makes people uncomfortable about it? Is it primarily that the benefits of a specific skill/question are unclear/unproven?
AFAIK a list of proven habits doesn’t really exist. As these do become clear, the checklist could be updated, improved, items added, items removed, etc.? I see potential value in that. Thoughts?
I’m uncomfortable with the idea of measuring aspects of rationality with checklists of specific mental habits, especially when the benefits of these habits are unproven.
is “unproven” the right yardstick? I don’t know if you’re making this mistake, but in our discussions of the efficacy of one or other part of rationality training it sometimes feels as if some people are asking “does the evidence permit us to believe” while others ask “does the evidence compel us to believe”. The whole business of training in modern rationality is very new. It’s unlikely anyone is very good at it yet, and it would be astonishing if we had really compelling evidence that someone was. It’s good to ask how we can learn more about whether this is any good, but it’s also OK to assess it on the balance of probabilities.
How do you assess the balance of probabilities in this case? If you go around asking people which mental habits help them in their day-to-day lives, you’ll probably find that prayer is more effective than the OP’s checklist. Or is there some more tangible evidence?
Can we flesh out what makes people uncomfortable about it? Is it primarily that the benefits of a specific skill/question are unclear/unproven?
AFAIK a list of proven habits doesn’t really exist. As these do become clear, the checklist could be updated, improved, items added, items removed, etc.? I see potential value in that. Thoughts?