Discussion article for the meetup : Baltimore meetup

Discussion article for the meetup : Baltimore meetup

Discussion article for the meetup : BALTIMORE: Anyone wanna meet up?

Discussion article for the meetup : BALTIMORE: Anyone wanna meet up?

I would like to request feedback on this comment, please.

I would also like to point out the cross-reference with jsalvatier's "What are good topics for literature review prizes?"

[NOTE: This was a discussion post asking if anyone would mind giving feedback on a very rough draft in progress.

If you are downvoting it because you do not want to see discussion posts asking for feedback like this, then by all means, that's a valid use of a downvote.

But if you are downvoting it in order to express your opinion of the quality of the draft, I urge you to reconsider]

This is another work in progress coming at the DI issue from a somewhat different direction. It's contained in the comments of the original, and I'm posting this to ask for more wonderful beta-reader critics to tell me if it's a step in the right direction. (It's still very informal writing, but it's the ideas I'm dealing with now.)

And about what I'm looking for in the LW audience, someone asked me in a private message:

... who is the audience, here? Are you hoping that LW readers are school administrators, who will introduce DI into their schools? Are you hoping that they are teachers, who will introduce DI into their classes? Are you hoping that they are students, who will be able to seek out instructors using DI? ...

I'm personally interested because I have an interest in alternate education methods; I think the method sounds promising and what I know matches up with what I know about solid epistemology. The people who are interested in epistemic rationality (another group you could tailor posts towards) would probably be interested in learning about epistemic methods that are quantitatively superior to others.

And I said:

Oh, I dunno about DI involving "epistemic methods that are quantitatively superior to others". The founder recently wrote a book about what John Stuart Mill could have done for education, so that's the epistemology that DI is applying.

So actually, another reason I keep using Newton's laws analogies is that I suspect there's an analogious 'general relativity' to be found.

So what I really want is for the people from the LW audience to learn DI theory themselves, because I think they could improve the theory.

Well, that's the major part of what I want that's important here. I also had to add:

you remember how I mentioned 'creative strategic twists' [for how we could help DI win, and how DI could help us win], and indicated that the inspiration for that came from comparing the Michel Thomas lessons with DI proper (the internal details of each and their separate histories)?

That's another long-inferential distance topic...

But that's not important here (except to disclose that is where I'm coming from). LWers would first have to understand DI to fully grasp that. And I am significantly less certain of my current beliefs about those 'strategic twists' (although still pretty certain), and LWers proficient in DI would be the best to evaluate the ideas.

So yeah, "Scientifically optimizing education: Hard problem, or solved problem? Introducing the Theory of Direct Instruction". Probably not gonna go down in history as my best piece of writing ever, to say the least.

Clearly I need to fix that. As an initial measure, I added some notes addressing key points and problems to the beginning as a much shorter replacement to the original post, and recommended the new reader not attempt to slog through the original below that unless they're strangely compelled.

I felt that the most sensible context for this would be at the beginning of the original post, so I put it there and put up this post as a notification of that. (If this somehow breaks some sort of rule of etiquette or style, please just tell me and I'll rectify it most snappily.)

Thank you for your patience.

Re-edited to remove/integrate much of the added notes - Sep 5th:

This is a long post, and it was a first attempt to simply start trying to explain the whole topic, and see what kind of mistakes I made in the communication.

I did indeed make many mistakes, and started to feel that I should ask people not to read this original attempt at first, and so posted added notes to the beginning to say so and try to clear up the worst confusions.

But now that my audience is starting to close the inferential gap themselves thanks to amazingly wonderful people like Misha with “What Direct Instruction Is”, I think important points that I tried to express in this original foray might start to become more transparent to that audience.

It's still a very long post, with lots of new terminology, and, as Alicorn said, “sales-y enthusiasm'.

If you do read it, I must ask that you please don't skim, giving me the benefit of a doubt that anything confusing or nonsensical seeming might actually be something that's important and meaningful in some non-obvious way that you do not yet understand, and that some of the 'sales-y enthusiasm' and “applause lights” may be have been intended to serve some useful purpose.

Again, please don't skim (although it is completely my fault if you feel like skimming!), because I just don't know how to do any better until I get more feedback on how the complete whole of what I wrote is understood.

If you do start skimming, and give up, just tell me where you did so.

[The “added notes” from the first edit I've removed, and will go through at a later time to extract anything that was original and useful and integrate it into the post itself or whatever.]

Thank you.

Begin original:

[Edit: I did not mean to post this, just save it as a draft (I only remember pressing the 'save and continue' button, not the 'submit' button. That shouldn't've posted it, right?).

Anyway, that's why it dissolves into slightly cryptic point form notes to myself at the end. Don't have the time right the now to flesh it out, so I'm just leaving it as is.]

I just noticed that there is no facebook group with this aim. I would like to create one. I feel that it *might* be a way to finally get enough 'special interest/human rights' force concentrated on the problem to fix it, if the presentation is done well.

Would anyone like to help me write the group description and accompanying information, optimizing for effectiveness?

Such a group would have two main audiences, and two main purposes:

1 - For those who already understand and support cryonics, it would be a means to coordinate action and share information.

2 - For those who have never really thought about cryonics before, but may well be open to the idea, it would serve as an introduction and hopefully cause them to join the first group.

As regards the first group, the only major point to stress that springs to my mind is the importance of keeping their *effectiveness* foremost in mind when taking their actions, which mostly just means reminding them to be very friendly, polite, and pleasant while pestering and trying to educate the bureaucrats and politicians.

But for the second group, well, I don't need to describe the difficulty in leading people to understanding across this particular inferential distance. How to do it in a snappy, engaging way?

- The essential human issues at the root here: Hope and love, and freedom.

- That the group is intended for people in BC and people with friends and family here put in danger by the law.

- technical skepticism

- moral confusion

- image. Narrative, short story

Resources I am thinking of drawing on are:

Scientists' Open Letter on Cryonics

Ben Best's FAQs

This page on BC's anti-cryonics law at the Canadian Cryonics Society

This article in the Tyee

letter to mom after Sandy's death

This little town doesn't seem to have much in the way of a lesswronger presence (search turns up me and one other user who hasn't been active since 2009), but damnit I'm here right now and I may as well give it a try!

Therefore I'll be at the Starbucks near the Market on Yates on Monday May 23rd from 5 pm to at least 6 pm.

I'll be reading a copy of "Theory of Instruction: Principles and Applications". Or writing on my laptop I guess. Actually, let's make this easy: Whatever I'm doing, I'll be wearing a black tricorn hat with gold piping and a giant white plume.

I'll be there anyway, but if any Victorianites out there are reading this, please, please do contact me, especially if you want to come but need a different time and/or location.

All right, here's hoping to see you there, all my hypothetical Victoria lesswrong homies!