Modifying someone else’s type 1 systems is the sin. Improving one’s own (typically by identifying things with type 2 and reinforcing them to make them smoother in type 1) is mostly good.
Rhetoric is other-directed: how to “win” a debate. There are elements of truth-seeking in there, especially if done with steelmanning and rigorous humility. But that’s rarely where it comes from, or goes.
That’s a part of it, but I think the fact that CFAR techniques focus on aligning system I and system II makes them different from attempts to change system I without caring about aligning with system II.
Modifying someone else’s type 1 systems is the sin. Improving one’s own (typically by identifying things with type 2 and reinforcing them to make them smoother in type 1) is mostly good.
Rhetoric is other-directed: how to “win” a debate. There are elements of truth-seeking in there, especially if done with steelmanning and rigorous humility. But that’s rarely where it comes from, or goes.
CFAR did a lot of work in helping people align their type 1 and type 2 which I wouldn’t call sinful but is about modifying people’s system 1.
In that case I’m assuming CFAR is only applying these ideas to people who want to be so modified? That seems dramatically less problematic.
That’s a part of it, but I think the fact that CFAR techniques focus on aligning system I and system II makes them different from attempts to change system I without caring about aligning with system II.