= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
DanArmak comments on Reflections on Pre-Rationality - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (30)
Re: why are there so few rationality researchers? Why aren't there hordes of people interested in these issues
Rationality is not on the curriculum. People typically learn about it through osmosis in the science classes. Along with critical thinking, it has been considered to be too simple to be a subject in its own right. So, it fell somewhere between the science and math stools - and got lost down there.
I should say that people typically fail to learn about it through osmosis.
(Too simple a subject, indeed. What a prime example of a statement that's Not Even Wrong. Perhaps "too removed from ordinary human experience" is a better description.)
Simple - at least compared to science or maths, surely. If you look at the school curriculum, you often have to be a big and complex subject to get your own dedicated slot.
I'm not denigrating the subject - just trying to see what happened to its timetable in the context of the school curriculum.
Well, it depends on the definition of "rationality" used. Many components are taught formally and are anything but simple - such as probability theory.
Probability theory is a pretty small subset of maths - plus it is probably already being taught anyway in the maths curriculum.