Is rationality training in it's infancy?
Yes.
As far as I understand CFAR plans to publish written material on their website that details their theory of how things sit together. Maybe as soon as the end of this year.
CFAR is quite willing to let workshop attendees be able to spread what they learn to other people. Nobody is encouraged to keep things secret but to spread knowledge. At both LW community camp in Berlin a large chunk of the material was CFAR based.
When it comes to the question of whether to speak about mindfulness or againstness, it reminds me of Jay A. Labinger:
The language you use to talk about something influences the way you think about it. If the chemistry you’re talking about is truly something new, then a fight over terminology may be quite an important part of getting to understand that chemistry better.
When I search for a definition of againstness on LW I found:
"The relevant CFAR unit is called "againstness." You can think of sympathetic dominance as related to (being?) a sensation of "againstness," e.g. when you get angry during a heated argument your feelings are directed against the person you're arguing with. "
Certainly the word mindfulness is not about getting angry. Being mindful allows you to recognize that you are angry but if you focus on teaching mindfulness the focus is different. The results will also be different.
Hopping is a much shorter phrase then "reference class forecasting". If you want to get people to actually do it instead of talking about it, it useful to have short terms for concepts.
If you want people to adopt a new behavior that they currently don't do, it's useful to have a new word for it. If you just use old words people nod that they agree and then don't change behavior.
I disagree. CFARs(and the sequences) tendency to rename and reinvent things is significantly harmful as it makes it much harder to use the existing bodies of research, books, and anecdotes to enhance your practice of them.
Is rationality training in it's infancy? I'd like to think so, given the paucity of novel, usable information produced by rationalists since the Sequence days. I like to model the rationalist body of knowledge as superset of pertinent fields such as decision analysis, educational psychology and clinical psychology. This reductionist model enables rationalists to examine the validity of rationalist constructs while standing on the shoulders of giants.
CFAR's obscurantism (and subsequent price gouging) capitalises on our [fear of missing out](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_of_missing_out). They brand established techniques like mindfulness as againstness or reference class forecasting as 'hopping' as if it's of their own genesis, spiting academic tradition and cultivating an insular community. In short, Lesswrongers predictably flouts [cooperative principles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle).
This thread is to encourage you to speculate on potential rationality techniques, underdetermined by existing research which might be a useful area for rationalist individuals and organisations to explore. I feel this may be a better use of rationality skills training organisations time, than gatekeeping information.
To get this thread started, I've posted a speculative rationality skill I've been working on. I'd appreciate any comments about it or experiences with it. However, this thread is about working towards the generation of rationality skills more broadly.