Does anyone know an article that expands on the idea of separating teaching institutions and assessment? I wrote a short expansion (750~ words) myself, and will probably publish it soon, but I’d like to read articles by other people too if they exist.
[APPRENTICE] Interested in your offer about getting in tech without college. I’m 20, I’ve learned python on my own, and I’m currently looking for a job without much success. FYI, I am from Israel, so I don’t know if it’s as relevant.
I noticed this became a subject lately so I created a tag for it. I’m not yet sure if it really needs a tag, but I’d thought it’s better to give it try and some time and then see. I also considered naming it “Apprenticeship and Mentorship” to cover both parts.
Oh, I see. That seems like a confusing way to do it. I’d have it show the text that was there when the page was created (Or just empty, if no text was added).
Well, I went through the last 2 months of wiki activity and did some voting. I really like this feature, and the feature showing you what each person did on the page is brilliant, makes me want to be able to upvote them right there.
A bit of design feedback: I think I would put the voting “widget” at the start of the line, so it’s always in the same place. Currently it’s places changes significantly based on the person’s name, how much and when they edited. And if they left an explanation of their edit then it’s in the middle between the two and you need to look for it.
It seems the creation of a page isn’t something that can be Karma voted on. perhaps it should? Especially if someone creates the page already with a description.
See the Pomodoro Technique page for example, it was created by Multicore 2 days ago, already with a long description, but I can’t upvote it.
btw, seems there’s a bug where it says the time of the edit. it says “New tag created by Multicore at” as if it’s going to say a date, but then says “2d” as if it were to say “New tag created by Multicore 2d ago”
Awesome additions! Now that we have karma voting for the wiki, I want even more to be able to see all the wiki activity of a certain user on a page, so I can go through some of the people that did a lot of work on the wiki and give them all the upvotes they should have gotten while this feature wasn’t on.
Contra, I found it really funny and it made me want to read the post more. Also the end bit with missing the forest for the trees was hilarious :)
Heh, I also know a road trip game called contact which, though similar in style, is quite different.
One player picks a word, and tells the other players the first letter of that word.
The other players need to say together words that start with the letters they have been given. They can use clues, and when one of the players thinks they have they’re both thinking of the same word he’ll say “1, 2, 3 contact” and then the two players will say it together.
If any player says a word alone (including the player who picked the first word) that word is burned and cannot be used again in the round, if two players say a word together that starts with the letters they’ve been given, the first player reveals the next letter of the word they picked.
The round continues until that word is guessed, and then another round starts.
If you’re using search to figure out if someone made “cards against humanity” for rationality, this post is what you’re looking for (just helping your SEO :P)
I see this most often with toothbrushes, “Removes up to 100% of plaque!”.
Just for context, I personally never used any of the softenings (I didn’t even hear about rationalish till this post). They’re both cute but ultimately meh in my opinion.
Aspiring rationalists is pretty much redundant, since a rationalist isn’t someone who claims to be rational, but indeed someome who aspires to be. So unless you aspire to aspire, there’s no point to the term.
I like Rationalish as a pun, but I think it solves the same nonexistent problem.
Are you talking about this? If so, why didn’t you just edit it?
I agree metacognition describes something we do, but I don’t think it captures it as well as a Rationality does (I don’t like “rationalism” and kinda frown whenever people use it, though gladly it’s not used a lot).
When I hear “Metacognition” I think about “Thinking about thinking”, but in any particular way. Rationality to me is almost like saying “Rational Metacognition”, meaning it has a direction, it strives to be successful, to do well (and so on). It doesn’t give as much freedom as Metacognition in a way that I like.
Put another way, Metacognition sounds like a phenomenon or a category of phenomena, while rationality sounds like a technique, an approach or a philosophy.
I am familiar with worrying that talking about rationality would feel awkward or pretentious, but I think finding a good way to introduce it could go a long way to help before we consider changing the name. Perhaps something like “I’m a rationalist, which means I learn and think about how to think well, so I can apply these lesson and be more effective and make better decisions”
Anyway, upvoted for an interesting topic and a well made argument.
Verveake was losing me in these parts of the series (though I did finish it). His overuse of complex language makes it extremely hard to understand what he’s talking about. And that also makes it hard to evaluate, use or further explain.
A good recent talk from David Wolpe about how to respond to Gossip (Specifically harmful negative gossip, he doesn’t make the distinctions I made here).
Religio is one of those terms that I never quite absorbed the meaning of and so was always a bit confused whenever he used it later on.
Yeah, I wanted to comment on that second paragraph being way overly complex, but didn’t have much to say apart from that. Your description seems apt. I hope at least he knows what he’s talking about with all these words. But in terms of communicating these ideas, that does not do the job. (And my memory is that I felt pretty much the same while watching the full lecture, even though i really like his idea of relevance realization)
Actually the series is mostly about “where we are, and how we got here,” and so it’s more like the history is the content and the cognitive science is the secondary content. So it’s not “why is half of this history?” and more “why did he tack on another 25 lectures afterwards?”
I agree. I also think that part is the better part of the series, and I can see myself recommending to people to watch just the first part, but not just the second. Though the second part explores some important concepts (like relevance realization) I think there’s a lot of room for improvement on the delivery, where I think the first part is quite well done.
I think the two things that most bothered me in the second part were his overuse of complicated language, and his overuse of caveats (I get why he makes them, but it breaks the flow and makes it so much harder to follow, especially together with all the complicated language)
When I click the search bar it shows the starting deck I added (How to make the most of thought saver) and 6 decks with the same name (which is the number of cards I created for it)