As someone who can't come to ny on short notice, will this be on youtube as well?

I'd be very interested in poking this dataset. Will the raw data be published for the dimensions analyzed here?

(If not, why do you hate science and the future of humanity? wait, drat, mind tricks only work on the weak-minded.)

Do you think this was caused by their rationality? It seems more likely to me that these people are drawn to rationality because it validates how they already think.

I went to an LW meetup once or twice. With one exception the people there seemed less competent and fun than my university friends, work colleagues, or extended family, though possibly more competent than my non-university friends.

I want to talk about the group (well, cluster of people) that calls itself "rationalists". What should I call it if not that?

Then how does one understand 'rationalists don't win'? 'Rationalists expect to win and fail, just like, for example, XYZ-ists do, only rationalists have trained themselves to recognize failure and in this way can still salvage more and so don't lose as completely (though we have no actual measure, because XYZ-ists will still think they have won)?:)

You know, it's hard for me to simultaneously think of someone as winning and not a rationalist, not to mention always correcting the result by 'my definition'. I could say that the confirmation bias is at fault, but really... Shouldn't we just dissolve the questions?:) I mean, suppose I do know a person who has trouble letting sunk causes go, and has probably firmly forgotten about the Bayes theorem, and uses arguments as soldiers on occasion... But she is far more active than me, she keeps trying out new things, seeking out jobs even beyond her experiences etc. Should I consider her rational? I don't know. Brave, yes. Rather smart, yes. Winning, often. But rational?

What you less wrong folks call "rationality" is not what everyone else calls "rationality" - you can't say "I also think that rationality is doing a great job in helping people", that either doesn't make sense or is a tautology, depending on your interpretation. Please stop saying "rationality" and meaning your own in-group thing, it's ridiculously offputting.

Also, my experience has been that CFAR-trained folks do sit down and do hard things, and that people who are only familiar with LW just don't. It has also been my experience that they don't do enough hard things to just "win", in the sense defined here, and that the difference between "winning" and not is actually not easily exploitable with slightly more intelligent macro-scale behavior. The branching points that differentiate between the winning and losing paths are the exploitable points - things like deciding whether or not to go to college, or whether to switch jobs - and they're alright at choosing between those, but so are other people. CFAR-trained folks are typically reasonably better than equivalently intelligent folks who have had the same experience so far, but not dramatically so.