= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
AnnaSalamon comments on Honours Dissertation - 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 (10)
It would be nice to have a "rationality battery" that could be used when measuring the effects of various interventions on folks' epistemic rationality. (E.g., we could use this to see if LW-reading, or various specific rationality exercises, help.)
Any progress toward a rationality battery, such as reviewing the literature on various specific questions and noting that, say, the cognitive reflectiveness test seems to be progress toward the same, would also be useful.
But I don't know to what extent such work has been done already. (Does anyone else reading this?)
They seem to usually go under a name like testing 'critical thinking'; http://www.uwsp.edu/special/wact/WACTConference2007/WarrenCTExams.pdf to name my first Google hit gave 8 commercially available tests of critical thinking, at least of few of which sound good to me eg. Watson-Glaser Might also look at the studies cited in http://images.austhink.com/pdf/Claudia-Alvarez-thesis.pdf
How would one give an operational definition of epistemic rationality here?