If we had a formal and efficient answer to this we would have FAI by now* or determined it impossible!
*Answering the question "Given a question, how should we go about answering it?" seems AI complete if not super human AI complete. People answer questions without doing it the right bayesian bless-ed way all the time with a bit of luck and brute force.
Answering the question "Given a question, how should we go about answering it?" seems AI complete if not super human AI complete.
Well, yes, that's kind of the point. Rationality is about finding the answers to all useful questions; we can achieve this by finding good answers to fully general questions, like that one.
I've been on Less Wrong since its inception, around March 2009. I've read a lot and contributed a lot, and so now I'm more familiar with our jargon, I know of a few more scientific studies, and I might know a couple of useful tricks. Despite all my reading, however, I feel like I'm a far cry from learning rationality. I'm still a wannabe, not an amateur. Less Wrong has tons of information, but I feel like I haven't yet learned the answers to the basic questions of rationality.
I, personally, am a fan of the top-down approach to learning things. Whereas Less Wrong contains tons of useful facts that could, potentially, be put together to answer life's important questions, I really would find it easier if we started with the important questions, and then broke those down into smaller pieces that can be answered more easily.
And so, that's precisely what I'm going to do. Here are, as far as I can tell, the basic questions of rationality—the questions we're actually trying to answer here—along with what answers I've found:
Q: Given a question, how should we go about answering it? A: By gathering evidence effectively, and correctly applying reason and intuition.