I do believe that one of the founders of CFAR has a PhD in Math/Science Education, so I think that Eliezer+Anna agreed with you and sought such expertise pretty early on.
Did they? Then what on earth is this post about…?
Might you want to defend the stronger claim that not just ought they have looked into such fields early on (as they did) but in fact not attempted to test an improvised class whatsoever until they had concluded an in-depth literature review and discussed it with people with more experience and a better track record in pedagogy?
Absolutely—although I would amend, perhaps, the ‘literature review’ bit—not that it would be inadvisable, just that I’d seek out an expert to speak with first, and then, as part of (or in parallel with) following that expert’s advice, review the literature. (Or, heck, do it immediately, why not. Depends how easy it is to deploy one a team member to do a lit review, vs. how easy it is to get hold of a suitable expert.)
More fundamentally, what I am saying is that Eliezer’s ruminations about whether to trust himself or Anna on this matter are simply irrelevant, because both of the possible answers that he proffers are wrong. If it costs nothing, or very little, to test an improvised class, sure, do it. Heck, do whatever you want, at any time and for any reason. But if you think that what you’re doing matters; if success is important, if failure is bad, if time and effort spent on the attempt are valuable; then the answer to “do I trust myself (a non-expert) or my friend (also a non-expert)” is “neither; immediately find an expert and consult them”.
Rule M has a stronger version of the same problem....it assumes methodological solipsisn. And the EY’s preferred alternative assumes non-solipsism, ie interacting with people and things. But non-solipsism isn’t immodesty.
Did they? Then what on earth is this post about…?
Absolutely—although I would amend, perhaps, the ‘literature review’ bit—not that it would be inadvisable, just that I’d seek out an expert to speak with first, and then, as part of (or in parallel with) following that expert’s advice, review the literature. (Or, heck, do it immediately, why not. Depends how easy it is to deploy one a team member to do a lit review, vs. how easy it is to get hold of a suitable expert.)
More fundamentally, what I am saying is that Eliezer’s ruminations about whether to trust himself or Anna on this matter are simply irrelevant, because both of the possible answers that he proffers are wrong. If it costs nothing, or very little, to test an improvised class, sure, do it. Heck, do whatever you want, at any time and for any reason. But if you think that what you’re doing matters; if success is important, if failure is bad, if time and effort spent on the attempt are valuable; then the answer to “do I trust myself (a non-expert) or my friend (also a non-expert)” is “neither; immediately find an expert and consult them”.
Rule M has a stronger version of the same problem....it assumes methodological solipsisn. And the EY’s preferred alternative assumes non-solipsism, ie interacting with people and things. But non-solipsism isn’t immodesty.