Sigh. I continue to forget how much of a problem that is. It is meant in the historical, rather than colloquial, meaning of the word. Since it apparently does not go without saying, the easily misunderstood term should never be used in official communication of any sort.
Do you know what the historical techniques happen to be?
Let’s take Maimonidies whose behavior is well described by Leo Strauss. There’s a law in the Torah against teaching the secrets in the Torah outside of 1-to-1 teaching.
If Leo Strauss is to be believed Maimonidies purpusefully writes wrong things to mislead naive readers and keep advanced knowledge from them.
If CFAR would write purposefully misleading things in their public material to pander down to naive readers and keep advanced knowledge from them, that would produce problems.
the easily misunderstood term should never be used in official communication of any sort.
In the time of the internet don’t use words publically that you wouldn’t use in official communication.
You have just described the same thing Duncan cited as a concern, only substituted a different motive; I am having trouble coming to grips with the purpose of the example as a result.
I propose that the method of organizing knowledge be considered. The goal is not to minimize the information, but to minimize the errors in its transmission. I assume transmission is inevitable; given that, segregating the information into lower-error chunks seems like a viable strategy.
You refered to historical techniques that are used. Generally historical groups actually have defenses against lay people accessing knowledge even if those lay people think they are experts and should be able to access the knowledge.
Whether it’s sworn secrecy, hiding knowledge in plain sight or simple lies to mislead uninitiated readers, there’s a huge toolbox.
I assume transmission is inevitable; given that, segregating the information into lower-error chunks seems like a viable strategy.
Presumably CFAR thinks that their workshop is a low error chunk of consuming their material.
I should amend my assumption to uncontrolled transmission is inevitable. The strategy so far has been to use the workshops, and otherwise decline to distribute the knowledge.
The historical example should be considered in light of what the goals are. The examples you give are strategies employed by organizations trying to deny all knowledge outside of the initiated. Enforcing secrecy and spreading bad information are viable for that goal. CFAR is not trying to deny the knowledge, only to maximize its fidelity. What is the strategy they can use to maximize fidelity in cases where they did not choose to transmit it (like this one)?
Suppose we model everyone who practices state-of-the-art rationality as an initiate, and everyone who wants to read about CFAR’s teachings as a suppliant. If the knowledge is being transmitted outside of the workshops, how do we persuade the suppliants to self-initiate? Imposing some sort of barrier, so that it requires effort to access the knowledge—I suggest by dividing the knowledge up, thus modelling the mysteries. We would want the divided content to be such that people who won’t practice it disengage rather than consume it all passively.
If CFAR were to provide the content, even in this format, I expect the incentive of people to produce posts like the above would be reduced, likewise for the incentive of people to read such collections.
In retrospect, I should have made it explicit I was assuming everyone involved was a (potential) insider at the beginning.
The examples you give are strategies employed by organizations trying to deny all knowledge outside of the initiated.
I think most of the organsiation I’m talking about don’t have a binary intiate/non-initiate criteria whereby the initiated get access to all knowledge. As people learn more they get access to more knowledge. Most scientologists haven’t heard of Xenu. At least that was the case 10 years ago.
If the knowledge is being transmitted outside of the workshops, how do we persuade the suppliants to self-initiate?
LW-Dojo are a way for knowledge to be transmitted outside of workshops. I also think that alumni are generally encouraged to explain knowledge to other people. Peer-to-peer instruction has natural filter that reduce completely passive consumption.
That doesn’t mean that inherently impossible to transmit knowledge via writting but it’s hard.
Yes, we should definitely make CFAR/LW look more like a cult :-/
Sigh. I continue to forget how much of a problem that is. It is meant in the historical, rather than colloquial, meaning of the word. Since it apparently does not go without saying, the easily misunderstood term should never be used in official communication of any sort.
I apologize for the lack of clarity.
Do you know what the historical techniques happen to be?
Let’s take Maimonidies whose behavior is well described by Leo Strauss. There’s a law in the Torah against teaching the secrets in the Torah outside of 1-to-1 teaching. If Leo Strauss is to be believed Maimonidies purpusefully writes wrong things to mislead naive readers and keep advanced knowledge from them.
If CFAR would write purposefully misleading things in their public material to pander down to naive readers and keep advanced knowledge from them, that would produce problems.
In the time of the internet don’t use words publically that you wouldn’t use in official communication.
You have just described the same thing Duncan cited as a concern, only substituted a different motive; I am having trouble coming to grips with the purpose of the example as a result.
I propose that the method of organizing knowledge be considered. The goal is not to minimize the information, but to minimize the errors in its transmission. I assume transmission is inevitable; given that, segregating the information into lower-error chunks seems like a viable strategy.
You refered to historical techniques that are used. Generally historical groups actually have defenses against lay people accessing knowledge even if those lay people think they are experts and should be able to access the knowledge.
Whether it’s sworn secrecy, hiding knowledge in plain sight or simple lies to mislead uninitiated readers, there’s a huge toolbox.
Presumably CFAR thinks that their workshop is a low error chunk of consuming their material.
I should amend my assumption to uncontrolled transmission is inevitable. The strategy so far has been to use the workshops, and otherwise decline to distribute the knowledge.
The historical example should be considered in light of what the goals are. The examples you give are strategies employed by organizations trying to deny all knowledge outside of the initiated. Enforcing secrecy and spreading bad information are viable for that goal. CFAR is not trying to deny the knowledge, only to maximize its fidelity. What is the strategy they can use to maximize fidelity in cases where they did not choose to transmit it (like this one)?
Suppose we model everyone who practices state-of-the-art rationality as an initiate, and everyone who wants to read about CFAR’s teachings as a suppliant. If the knowledge is being transmitted outside of the workshops, how do we persuade the suppliants to self-initiate? Imposing some sort of barrier, so that it requires effort to access the knowledge—I suggest by dividing the knowledge up, thus modelling the mysteries. We would want the divided content to be such that people who won’t practice it disengage rather than consume it all passively.
If CFAR were to provide the content, even in this format, I expect the incentive of people to produce posts like the above would be reduced, likewise for the incentive of people to read such collections.
In retrospect, I should have made it explicit I was assuming everyone involved was a (potential) insider at the beginning.
I think most of the organsiation I’m talking about don’t have a binary intiate/non-initiate criteria whereby the initiated get access to all knowledge. As people learn more they get access to more knowledge. Most scientologists haven’t heard of Xenu. At least that was the case 10 years ago.
LW-Dojo are a way for knowledge to be transmitted outside of workshops. I also think that alumni are generally encouraged to explain knowledge to other people. Peer-to-peer instruction has natural filter that reduce completely passive consumption.
That doesn’t mean that inherently impossible to transmit knowledge via writting but it’s hard.
Agreed. The more I consider the problem, the higher my confidence that investing enough energy in the process is a bad investment for them.
Another romantic solution waiting for the appropriate problem. I should look into detaching from the idea.
Call it something like “gnostic practices” so that hoi polloi have no idea what it means, but it sounds respectable :-)