Overall, I think this sounds like a great idea to test. in fact, the idea of having group discussions include a formal confessor, who focuses just on keeping the argument clean, is an excellent idea on its own, even without psychoactive substances.
That said, I suspect I have a decent idea of why you’re getting downvotes. The rest of this are some of my suspected reasons why. Thus, this will probably read like biting criticism. I’m hoping you take it in the constructive spirit it’s intended.
Find 2-3 rationalists who know every prior needed to solve the problem.
I suspect you mean to find some rationalists who strongly have the background knowledge that’s likely to be necessary. An important aspect of being confused about a problem is not actually knowing what pieces are useful to think about at the same time. “All the necessary priors” is something you learn after you’ve solved the problem.
Assign the odd-rationalist-out (preferably the most rational of the three)
In any group of several “rationalists” that I know, it’s not all that easy to pick the “most rational” person. There are many different skills involved in x-rationality, and the ability to spot likely confusions and likely biases—to referee a discussion, essentially—is an important but not all-consuming subskill. On the other hand, I really like the idea of having a designated “rationalist referee” for serious discussions. However, this:
It is the Confessor’s job to determine whether the hypotheses created by the brainstormers have high Bayesian probability, and that all logical leaps and/or biases are identified as soon as they are made.
is probably impossible. At best, it’s the Confessor’s job to watch for missing logical steps or biased arguments, and point them out as soon as noticed. We have to make the Confessor out of a person, after all.
It’s not a huge deal, but by “prior” we usually mean the probability one ascribes to ideas before weighing evidence, rather than the ideas themselves. Your use of “prior” here is probably part of what’s set off people’s rejections.
Moreover, if you look closely at it, much of your “evidence that this will work” isn’t much evidence; it’s a shiny anecdote broken into bullet points. The parts that are evidence, though, are only evidence for “cannabis aids unfiltered insight,” rather than “this technique will work.” (I have my own reasons to suspect that the rest of this technique will work, but I’ve been putting off the long, well-researched post about brainstorming that I ought to be able to link here. :/ )
The conclusion, as stated, seems vastly overconfident. “Teamwork” is already part of the idea of a rationality dojo. This leaves “cannabis”, then, as your stated “missing ingredient” to making a “rationality dojo” work. This… is likely to be a vast overstatement—not least because it claims only to help the whole group reach better conclusions, rather than spurring the group to act on those conclusions, or getting everyone in the group to internalize those conclusions. Better to say, frankly, that this could help, and that you’d like to test this. (I’m pretty sure that’s what you mean! But it’s not how it reads.)
Overall, I think this sounds like a great idea to test. in fact, the idea of having group discussions include a formal confessor, who focuses just on keeping the argument clean, is an excellent idea on its own, even without psychoactive substances.
That said, I suspect I have a decent idea of why you’re getting downvotes. The rest of this are some of my suspected reasons why. Thus, this will probably read like biting criticism. I’m hoping you take it in the constructive spirit it’s intended.
I suspect you mean to find some rationalists who strongly have the background knowledge that’s likely to be necessary. An important aspect of being confused about a problem is not actually knowing what pieces are useful to think about at the same time. “All the necessary priors” is something you learn after you’ve solved the problem.
In any group of several “rationalists” that I know, it’s not all that easy to pick the “most rational” person. There are many different skills involved in x-rationality, and the ability to spot likely confusions and likely biases—to referee a discussion, essentially—is an important but not all-consuming subskill. On the other hand, I really like the idea of having a designated “rationalist referee” for serious discussions. However, this:
is probably impossible. At best, it’s the Confessor’s job to watch for missing logical steps or biased arguments, and point them out as soon as noticed. We have to make the Confessor out of a person, after all.
I’d add that the Confessor should suggest clarifying tactics (eg., rationalist taboo, employing the reversal test, or arguing from the least convenient world) where they might be useful.
It’s not a huge deal, but by “prior” we usually mean the probability one ascribes to ideas before weighing evidence, rather than the ideas themselves. Your use of “prior” here is probably part of what’s set off people’s rejections.
Moreover, if you look closely at it, much of your “evidence that this will work” isn’t much evidence; it’s a shiny anecdote broken into bullet points. The parts that are evidence, though, are only evidence for “cannabis aids unfiltered insight,” rather than “this technique will work.” (I have my own reasons to suspect that the rest of this technique will work, but I’ve been putting off the long, well-researched post about brainstorming that I ought to be able to link here. :/ )
The conclusion, as stated, seems vastly overconfident. “Teamwork” is already part of the idea of a rationality dojo. This leaves “cannabis”, then, as your stated “missing ingredient” to making a “rationality dojo” work. This… is likely to be a vast overstatement—not least because it claims only to help the whole group reach better conclusions, rather than spurring the group to act on those conclusions, or getting everyone in the group to internalize those conclusions. Better to say, frankly, that this could help, and that you’d like to test this. (I’m pretty sure that’s what you mean! But it’s not how it reads.)
Thank you. That is exactly what I meant to say, even if I didn’t know I meant to say it ;) I’m making the changes you suggested.
EDIT: Done