I’m not the only one getting a somewhat cult-like vibe from this, am I?
I’m only using concepts created by members of the community to help ensure understanding of the material. I’m in no way attached to the idea of “x-rationality” and “rationality dojos”. This method could be easily utilized by anyone with a cursory understanding of cognitive biases.
A few Lesswrongians meeting up and getting high are not going to solve the world’s problems
Again, maybe not, but if the tool is shown to be even 5% more effective than a normal brainstorming process, then won’t it be worth it?
Not that Cannabis might not be of some assistance to actual experts, but simply being rational does not immediately qualify you to solve very much.
I really overrepresented the kind of skill you need to have to make use of Cannabis as a tool for decision making. You don’t need to be Eliezer Yudkowsky, lukeprog, James Randi, or even me (and I’m, admittedly, extremely irrational and unknowledgeable. I’m working on it). You only need to know the difference between a rationalization and rationality. All the other stuff is really, really useful, don’t get me wrong, but I think that’s the minimum to use the technique. And the technique, again, is not just to get high… it is to have a rational, sober observer moderating the conversation.
Bah, now you’re making me want to rewrite the whole thing without Eliezer’s style of cultishcountercultishness. It’s damned ironic, since when I first discovered Less Wrong I was a bit worried of the same exact thing. Thanks for telling me about the elephant in the room.
EDIT: It reads a lot more sane, now, I think. I’ve sanitized it of most of the superfluous LessWrong terminology. Remember, I came up with the idea using the less-efficient solo method of “write [high]; edit sober.” If I had a Confessor with me to keep the sanity in the first place, I expect it would have read a lot less “cultish.” I still think the underlying idea is a good one, and worthy of experiment.
I’m only using concepts created by members of the community to help ensure understanding of the material. I’m in no way attached to the idea of “x-rationality” and “rationality dojos”. This method could be easily utilized by anyone with a cursory understanding of cognitive biases.
Again, maybe not, but if the tool is shown to be even 5% more effective than a normal brainstorming process, then won’t it be worth it?
I really overrepresented the kind of skill you need to have to make use of Cannabis as a tool for decision making. You don’t need to be Eliezer Yudkowsky, lukeprog, James Randi, or even me (and I’m, admittedly, extremely irrational and unknowledgeable. I’m working on it). You only need to know the difference between a rationalization and rationality. All the other stuff is really, really useful, don’t get me wrong, but I think that’s the minimum to use the technique. And the technique, again, is not just to get high… it is to have a rational, sober observer moderating the conversation.
Bah, now you’re making me want to rewrite the whole thing without Eliezer’s style of cultish countercultishness. It’s damned ironic, since when I first discovered Less Wrong I was a bit worried of the same exact thing. Thanks for telling me about the elephant in the room.
EDIT: It reads a lot more sane, now, I think. I’ve sanitized it of most of the superfluous LessWrong terminology. Remember, I came up with the idea using the less-efficient solo method of “write [high]; edit sober.” If I had a Confessor with me to keep the sanity in the first place, I expect it would have read a lot less “cultish.” I still think the underlying idea is a good one, and worthy of experiment.