I've read the article a few times, but found myself getting confused. After some thinking, I think I've narrowed it down to working better with examples rather than general universals. The above seems like good material, but is there any way I could convince anyone to give an example or two, maybe walk through the process step by step?

In general, we need rationality materials for people of ordinary intelligence. The vast majority of people are part of the rationality waterline we're trying to raise. And it wouldn't surprise me if writing materials for them would lead to clearer, simpler explanations which are just as sound as the ones we have.

I agree that teens and preteens are the most important audience, but I don't understand what LW lacks that you need. When OB started I didn't want it to be more targeted at my age range. Maybe more mental health advice?

Completed. Huzzah! I feel like a participating member of the community.

That's my biggest problem too. :)

I can't speak entirely to the evidence he offers, it does feel like skill acquisition in many domains works as he suggests with very rapid gains initially, then a period where progress feels like you work for it, then you reach a plateau and breakthroughs become few and far between and require insane amounts of effort.

This is what happened when I was playing Go, for instance. The "waterline" in amateur go is roughly around 1dan, the rank most players find it hardest to reach. However in Go the evidence doesn't support that particular shape very well. There are ways this could be explained, such as by frustrated "permanent kyu" players quitting the game. (As I did eventually - at a KGS 2nd kyu rank I'm not sure I even deserve, as it's mostly from playing blitz games.)

If it's a seriously misguided but good-faith comment by a newbie, I might want to downvote it and explain why I did it. Hanlon's razor.

I think the biggest problem I initially have with accepting Silver's graph is the lack of evidence he gives for that arch. Putting that shape on a graph has quite a few ramifications.

Do you feel that the evidence he gave supported that shape?

I'm not sure that randomness from evolution and enculturation should be treated differently from random factors in the intuition-squaring process. It's randomness all the way through either way, right?

I think this statement is the fulcrum of my disagreement with your argument. You assert that "it's randomness all the way through either way". I disagree; it's not randomness all the way, not at all.

Evolution's mutations and changes are random; evolutions adaptions are not random - they happen in response to the outside world. Furthermore, the mutations and changes that survive aren't random either: they all meet the same criteria, that they didn't hamper survival.

I believe, then, that developing an internally consistent moral framework can be aided by recognizing the forces that have shaped our intuitions, and deciding whether the direction those forces are taking us is a worthy destination. We don't have to be blind and dumb slaves to Evolution any more. Not really.

Is this more or less the same thing as Cached Thoughts?

When I did discussion groups like these, one useful term I introduced was a "canned answer". This is any answer that can be supplied without any original thought or analysis, as if they just went into the cellar of their mind and pulled out a can. Introducing this term as a negative thing and banning "canned answers" puts focus on taking a moment to think before speaking. It got to the point where I was able to just look at someone and twist my hand - they'd instantly stop and think. The group also became self-policing and started asking, "that seemed a little fast; do you think it was canned?" to check themselves.

It's a term I found useful. I hope your group continues to go well!