= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Gleb_Tsipursky comments on Outreach Thread - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (20)
Note, all these publications were for a broad audience, so couched in the language of science-based self-improvement, as are other Intentional Insights activities.
1) Published an article for a popular self-improvement website encouraging people to update their beliefs.
2) Published an article for a popular secular website introducing the concept of agency.
3) Published an article for a prominent self-improvement website introducing the basics and implications of dual process theory.
4) Published an article for a secular organization on Giving Games, workshop-style events promoting EA-style effective giving.
Isn't the idea of spreading rationality techniques, or terms like agency, or theories like dual process theory, without an evidence base suggesting that spreading those specific rationality techniques or concepts leads to x good thing kinda irrational? Theoretical constructs are useful for researchers, but not necessarily useful for applicants.
I'm not sure what's so irrational about it. I have a high probability estimate that spreading these ideas and raising the sanity waterline is a good thing. It would be irrational not to spread them due to opportunity costs.
Consider a parallel example: would you ask Eliezer to have tested out whether writing the Sequences is a good thing before writing them and spreading this thinking? If not, why not?
Convincing analogy. I don't know.