I downvoted this comment because I feel it dives too far into the specific politics of the situation, without being constructive in specific ways. That makes me think it is likely to increase the amount of mind-killing, without really raising the level of the discussion.

EDIT: I am curious why this was downvoted. I was trying to be more polite than offering a simple downvote by offering information which could be used to create more productive comments. If I haven't done that well I'd appreciate a response in kind rather than simple downvotes.

In the sense at least that the Occupy movements' goal is lasting societal change ...

Change is anything different than now; it isn't much of a goal.

A blind monkey could see that something was wrong with trillions of dollars of bailouts and debt assumption. If you're not really identifying what that something is, I don't think you're adding much to the discussion. As it is, the one sided attack on corporate culpability for the mess, while ignoring government's hand in it, leaves me to conclude that any diagnosis they come up with will miss the mark.

The movements I think are worth looking at are the ones that create value, routing around current institutions. Basically all the open source efforts to actually make things by harnessing the cognitive surplus of an increasingly educated and connected world.

Doing is more important than squawking, as long as the regime isn't completely oppressive. The increasing maker culture, bringing technology and design to solve problems, is more transformative than politics as performance self entertainment.

And I'm not exactly strong in the ways of rationality yet, still reading and re-reading the Sequences (I keep getting lost somewhere halfway into the QM sequence,

Skip it. It's the least important of all the sequences.

It's not exactly a textbook series, but I've found the videos at khan academy http://www.khanacademy.org/#browse to be really helpful with getting the basics of a lot of things. The most advanced math it covers is calculus, which will get you a long way, and the language of the videos is always simple and straightforward.

... Guess I need to recommend it against other video series, to keep to the rules here.

I do recommend watching the stanford lecture videos http://www.youtube.com/user/StanfordUniversity?blend=1&ob=5 , but I recommend Khan over them for simplicity's sake on getting the basics. (Then watch stanford for a more complex understanding)

And though it just covers abiogenesis and evolution, cdk007 http://www.youtube.com/user/cdk007?blend=1&ob=5#p/a does have quite a bit of overlap with khan's biology section. But it's a lot more narrow than what khan covers, and pretty much is just there to counter creationists. While that's a pretty good goal, and the videos are good, it's not as good for learning in my opinion.

I think the community that I grew up in might have something that can be looked into as a sort of semi-example. I grew up in a rural town, and it had no shortage of religiosity, but most community events didn't happen at the churches. There were weekly sermons sure, but marriages, town hall meetings, debates, just about any big event would happen at our Grange hall .

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_National_Grange_of_the_Order_of_Patrons_of_Husbandry , it's basically freemasonry for farmers)

The grange serves as sort of a meta-communal arranger of all the sub-communities of the town's religions; we have a dozen flavors of christian including catholic and jehova's witnesses, mormons, quite a few jewish people, a very few muslims, and even less atheists. But all of those groups have sub-populations belonging to the Grange, and they all get along at grange meetings fairly well. It's like it was a neutral ground, where they could all go to get things done.

Probably not a perfect example, but it's the cached thought that came to my mind as an example when i was reading this.

Welcome! 'nother Programmer here, and game maker too (I think there are a few of us here). D'you have any nice games to show?

Hi there everyone, I'm a programmer by trade and a video game maker by inclination. I first ran across Less Wrong while random-walking through tvtropes. I read a little of it, found it daunting but fascinating, and it... sat in my bookmarks for about a year after that.

Later, I random-walked upon Harry Potter atMoR, and it rekindled my interest. I'd read a chapter, get on lesswrong, and try and find all the tricks that harry (or other characters) used for that chapter. It was still slow going, because I wanted not just to read the material, but to absorb it and become stronger (Tsuyoku Naritai!)

I... pretty desperately needed it. I grew up in a rural community with an absolutely abhorrent school system, even by the standards of the american school system. I had a middle-school understanding of math and logic going into college, and am still recovering from the effects of a bad start (Bayesian theory and the QM sequence are on the very edge of what's possible for me, but stronger, stronger, I will learn)

I 'came out' as an atheist two years ago to my parents, and began rearranging my life insurance to go to an Alcor membership two weeks ago. All in all, I'm not terribly new to 'critical' thinking in terms of not taking a claim at face value, but still learning how to truly deeply analyze claims as a rationalist.

So um.. hi

Wow. So, I'm basically brand new to this site. I've never taken a logic class and I've never read extensively on the subjects discussed here. So if I say something unbearably unsophisticated or naive, please direct me somewhere useful. But I do have a couple comments/questions about this post and some of the replies.

I don't think it's fair to completely discount prayer. When I was a young child, I asked my grandmother why I should bother praying, when God supposedly loved everyone the same and people praying for much more important things didn't get what they wanted all the time.

She told me that the idea is not to pray for things to happen or not happen. If I pray for my basketball team to win our game (or for my son to get well, or to win the lottery, or whatever) then based on how I interpret the results of my prayer I would be holding God accountable for me getting or not getting what I wanted. The point of praying, as she explained it, was to develop a relationship with God so I would be able to handle whatever situation I found myself in with grace. Even though we often structure our prayers as requests for things to happen, the important thing to keep in mind was how Jesus prayed in the garden before he was crucified. Even though he was scared of what was going to happen to him and he didn't want to go through with it, his prayer was "your will, not mine". He didn't pray for things to go his way, although he acknowledged in his prayers that he did have certain things that he wanted. The point of the prayer was not to avoid trials or fix their outcome, but to communicate with God for the strength and courage to hold fast to faith through trials.

Now, I'm certainly not citing my grandmother as a religious or theological expert. But that explanation made sense to me at the time, partially because I think you could probably that it would have the same benefit for people regardless of whether or not there was actually a God to correspond to the prayers, which jives well with how I believe in God.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the post, but I think I have something like believing that I ought to believe in God, although I've always phrased it as choosing to believe in God. Even though I was raised Catholic, I never felt like I really "believed" it. For as long as I can remember, the idea of "belief" has made me incredible uncomfortable. Every time a TV show character asked "didn't you ever just believe something" I would cringe and wonder how anyone could possibly find such an experience valid when anyone else could have an alternate experience.

Secretly, I'm glad that I've never felt any kind of religious conviction. If I did, then I would have to prize my subjective experience over someone else's subjective experience. I'm quite aware that there are a multitude of people that have had very profound experiences that make them believe in one doctrine or another to the exclusion of all others, and that's something I can't really understand. Knowing that other people exist that feel equal conviction about different ideas of God with the same objective evidence makes it impossible for me to have any sort of belief in a specific God or scripture, at least at the level of someone who believes with enough conviction not to be perfectly comfortable with the idea that I'm wrong.

That said, I consider myself Catholic. I don't agree with all the doctrine and I don't think I could honestly say I think my religion is correct and other religions are wrong in any way that corresponds to an objective reality. But I choose to believe in this religion because what I do really believe deep down is that there is some higher order that gives meaningfulness to human life.

I consider it to be rather like the way I love my family- I don't objectively think that my family is the best family in the world, the particular subset of people most deserving of my love and affection. But they're my family, and I'll have no other. I can love them while still acknowledging that your love for your family is just as real as mine. Just because they're different experiences doesn't make them more or less valid- and just because it isn't tangible or falsifiable doesn't make it any less potent. Even so, I'm always curious if I'm really an atheist, or maybe an agnostic, since I don't really believe it beyond my conscious choice to believe it (and a bit of emotional attachment to my personal history with this specific religion).

Whew. That was a lot of words. Anyways, I'm sure that I've got plenty of logical and rational flaws and holes. Like I said, I'm basically brand new to all the ideas presented here, so I'm going to try and thrash my way through them and see what beliefs I still hold at the end.

Experimental and Organizational tests seem to be the most important test types here; if the students and methods are able to show they're capable, and are measurably better than the students of another craft, then their school is obviously doing something better than other schools anyway, no Reputational test needed. So I'll concentrate on those.

What do we need for an experimental test? We need a way of comparing the strengths of students and ideas, to see which are stronger. The problem here is that there's not really a standard unit of rationality. If you want to measure something's volume, you can put it in a water bath and measure how many mL it displaces. If you want to measure someone's rationality... you're a bit out of luck.

I'm not well versed enough yet in cognitive sciences to propose a unit of raw intelligence/rationality measurement, and a way of at least estimating it. Until such a metric is apparant, I think we can make do with comparative testing. Take two students and have them perform some test of rationality that returns less rational, more rational, or equally rational as a rough comparison of the two. Perform it on an entire school, and you can rank each student. Perform it between similarly ranked students in two schools, and you can determine which school is better. Roughly. A test like this could also potentially serve as an organizational test.

What tests would I propose as an experiment? How about something like having the students competitively build a weirdtopia? (http://lesswrong.com/lw/xm/building_weirdtopia/) You could have a panel of randomly selected scifi fans read one of the two weirdtopias (don't compare them side by side, we're trying to get their honest opinion about one of the stories, not their comparison of the two) and rate 1-10 how much they'd like to live in that weirdtopia. The student with a higher voted paper is more rational, and if the stories are about equally weighted, we have two roughly equal weirdtopias.

That... doesn't test every facet of rationality I know. However, using tests as a way of comparing two students is something that a lot more tests could be adapted to, without necessarily having to make a measurable yardstick of rationality. Just need to figure out which aspect of rationality you want to test, look at papers and stories that display this aspect, have the two students write a similar paper using their own skills, and compare the two.