That is a really good point, and it helps me think much more clearly about the comparison I made.
You’re completely right about the lack of a control group. If we assume that tracking any similar cohort (matched for age, gender, education, and an active interest in self-improvement) would naturally show similar upward trends over a year, then attributing the effect entirely to the retreat is definitely flawed.
When I wrote that, I was operating under the baseline assumption that without a specific treatment or change in circumstance, life satisfaction and those other metrics would remain relatively static. However, I haven’t actually read the literature on the natural trajectory for this specific demographic—it’s entirely possible that a similar cohort would see an organic increase anyway simply because they are highly motivated people looking to improve. I don’t have enough confidence to make a strong claim either way.
A much better study design would use an active control group, for example, comparing CFAR attendees to people attending Less.online meetups or similar events. That would help us figure out if the measured effects actually come from the CFAR curriculum, or if they just stem from the baseline benefits of aggregating rationalists together and having a fun gathering.
Apologies for the delayed response.
I really liked techniques like question substitution. The fact that it comes with actual worksheets makes it practical. It clearly shows you where your thinking goes wrong, provides a much better system to work with, and is easily usable in the moment just by remembering it.
“Whoness,” on the other hand, is a concept I’m finding much harder to fully map out and internalize.
Based on Anna’s examples (at least to the extent of my understanding), external “whoness” seems to be about noticing that specific, special detail that makes up someone’s individuality. For instance, noticing that your aunt puts a special ingredient into her pie, and connecting with her by acknowledging and praising that specific effort each time you visit. Or connecting with a quiet uncle because, even though he doesn’t talk much, you can bond over discussing math.
There’s the internal application, noticing the “whoness” of yourself. This feels akin to some sort of focusing, mindfulness, or cultivating personal agency. A good example is the tutoring scenario from the material:
I don’t really understand this concept grouping yet. It seems to bundle together a few different mechanics:
Praising others’ specific identities: “Look for true, positive things (concrete, detailed, accurate things) to appreciate out loud… tied into the person’s central efforts and sources of pride.”
Finding mutual interests: “If you’d like to befriend someone, try to take an interest in things they are interested in.”
Internal narrative building: Reframing your own difficult tasks so they align with your personal pride or aspirations.
Some others have likened the external parts of this to Dale Carnegie’s How to Win Friends and Influence People. I read that back in my high school days, and it was undeniably helpful for navigating the world as a nerdy, socially awkward kid.
That said, i know some of the more senior rationalists really enjoyed it.