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)
wesome! I thought about such a feature before but didn’t expect to suddenly see it added. I’m really curious to see how it will be used. In the meantime, since this post doesn’t have flashcards, I get to try making it some flashcards myself :)
uh… Well i tried, but for some reason it created a new deck (with the same name) for each card I created, not really sure why it did that or how to fix it.
Problem was fixed, here are the flashcards:
Seems similar to the OODA loop
Related to rationalists in Stalinist Russia: Kolmogorov Complicity and The Parable of Lightning
Nice! Looking forward to reading your post. I wrote a few notes myself under the title “Should You Become Rational”*, but it turn into enough for a post. One of the things that I wanted to consider is whether its someone’s duty to become more rational, which I think is an interesting question (and it’s a topic that was discussed on LW, see Your Rationality is My Business). My current conclusion is that your obligation to become more rational is relative to how much influence you have to wish to have on the world and on other people. Of course, even if true, this point might be slightly moot, since only someone who is already interested in rationality might agree with it, others are unlikely to care.
* “Rational” pretty much for lack of a better word that still kept it short, didn’t want to use rationalist as that’s an identification as part of a specific group, which isn’t the point
I think Rationality itself is also a metric that fits this pattern (similarly to enlightenment). Taking into account that becoming more rational isn’t free, and might actually have a substantial cost, I’m pretty sure for many people it’s not worth it to invest in becoming more rational. I feel there’s a full post to be written here, but I don’t yet have the clarity to write it.
This was a cute, fun little post. Thanks ;)
My jaw dropped when I got to the screenshot of the tweets, and it took me about a minute and a few double checks before I was able to put it back in place.
The monastery section made me think of Marcus Aurelius, he is considered one of histories greatest leaders, and from the little I know about him, it seems justified. He also seems to be an example of someone who was both a “monk” and was on the throne. I’m not sure what to take away from this, but at least it suggests that it’s not impossible? (of course, there are quite a few differences between our world and Aurelius’ world).
What other examples are there of the rationalist community influencing things outside of it? Seems worthy of a wiki page / tag
is not of type