Pedagogically, how can we most effectively & efficiently train people in metarationality? No one yet knows. Your suggestion of training it along with rationality is attractive and plausible.
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @xuenay
In the Bongard post, and other places, I’ve emphasized “this is something you are already doing without noticing; the next step is to see clearly what this thing is, and then you can start to learn to do it better.”
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @xuenay
I would love to reform the undergraduate curriculum to do that. This seems unrealistic in the short term, however. In the current world, the possibility of metarationality only comes into view once you have become proficient in rationality and then seen its limitations.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @xuenay
It’s plausible that you can seduce people some way along the path to metarationality by (mis)presenting it as “advanced rationality.” That will probably work best for many people! Especially those who learn best by starting with concrete skills before understanding principles.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @xuenay
Given very limited resources, and very limited knowledge of what might work, I am pursuing an alternative pedagogical approach, of clearly laying out the principles and concepts from the beginning. That may work best for people who (like me) need to get the big picture first.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @xuenay
The main question for my readers now is probably “what even is this supposed thing ‘metarationality’? does it exist? why should I care about it?” So I see step 1 as pointing out as clearly as possible what it is, which involves pointing out how it’s different from rationality.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @xuenay
For anyone who holds rationality as a religion, that’s inevitably going to be confrontive, even if I emphasize that metarationality is in no way opposed to rationality, and indeed that neither can operate without the other *at all*.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @xuenay
see I think it's things like this "people who hold rationality as a religion", that make it hard to parse for specifically rationalists that you'd want to make the transition. I think this reads as outright insulting to them (not to me, I fully get the point you're making)
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @againstutopia @xuenay
That point is well-taken, thank you! OTOH, “this is a silly religion” is a widespread assessment of LW rationalism, and I’d like to see that community take it more seriously instead of rejecting it unthinkingly.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @xuenay
HAHA honestly I am with you in that assessment, I was ejected from the church in ~2012 for criticisms of solomonoff induction as justification for the general case of induction this was really more an argument for perspective-taking, but I can't disagree with your assessment
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
There needs to be a canonical short clear explanation of "here's why Solomonoff induction is a mathematical curiosity that has no bearing on anything real" that could be pointed at whenever it comes up. I've been tempted to write one, but my queue is already infinite...
-
-
@ProfJayDaigle, might you be implored to write something like this?1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Something like that is in my queue, actually--look at how I end my post on Bayesian inference. I'm not sure I'll land exactly where you would on the issue, and I certainly don't think it will be the canonical anything: I'm an interested amateur here, not an expert.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like - 8 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.