taryneast comments on Teachable Rationality Skills - Less Wrong

52 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 27 May 2011 09:57PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (257)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 27 May 2011 09:48:19PM 9 points [-]

Exercise material: List of suggested conclusions to rationalize. I'm not quite sure what the prerequisites here would be; one of my own childhood epiphanies was finding that I could argue reasons why there ought to be a teapot in the asteroid belt, and thinking to myself, "Well, I better not do that, then." I suspect the primary desideratum would be more that the topic offers plenty of opportunity to come up with clever rationalizations, rather than that the topic offers motivation to come up with clever rationalizations.

Exercise A: Pick a conclusion from the list. Come up with a clever argument why it is true. Notice what it feels like to do this. Then don't do it.

(This is distinct from noticing the feeling of being tempted to rationalize, a separate subskill.)

Exercise B: In the middle of coming up with clever arguments why something is true, stop and chain into the Litany of Tarski, or some other remedy. Variant: Say out loud "Ew!" or "Oops!" during the stop part.

Exercise C: For a conclusion on the list, argue that it is true. Then "Ask whether, not why" - try to figure out whether it is true. Notice the difference between these two processes. Requires a question whose answer is less than immediately obvious, but which someone can find info about by searching their memory and/or the Internet.

Comment author: taryneast 28 May 2011 09:17:11AM 12 points [-]

Hmmm this just made me think that debate clubs deliberately teach the opposite of this skill.

Comment author: FiftyTwo 29 May 2011 03:57:15AM 3 points [-]

True, but the successful debaters in my experience are the ones who can construct both sides of an argument in order to pre-empt and account for possible responses.

This isn't necessarily just a binary for/against disinction but considering better ways to acheive the same goal and possible unintended consequence.

[Speaking as an active participant of the UK universities competitive debating circuit, though I acknowledge that makes me prone to rationalise in its favour]

Comment author: Barry_Cotter 28 May 2011 03:01:12PM 1 point [-]

And at least in Britain and Ireland they provide disproportionate numbers of future lawyers and politicians.