If there are (relative to LW) many good self-help sites and no good sites about rationality as such, that suggests to me LW should focus on rationality as such and leave self-help to the self-help sites. This is compatible with LW's members spending a lot of time on self-help sites that they recommend each other in open threads.

Both really. How much time should we dedicate to making our map fit the territory before we start sacrificing optimality? Spend too long trying to improve epistemic rationality and you begin to sacrifice your ability to get to work on actual goal seeking.

On the other end, if you don't spend long enough to improve your map, you may be inefficiently or ineffectively trying to reach your goals.

We're still thinking of ways to be able to quantify these. Largely it depends on the specific goal and map/territory as well as the person.

Anybody else have some ideas?

So lets assume that Being a fundamentalist Christian is P=1, and being a fundamentalist atheist is P=0. Keeping in mind that I didn't use the term P=1 originally, and even in context it was not set down as a binary equation (I was assuming that the 1 meant you were sure there is no god, not an immutable belief in the fact, while .75 meant you might lean heavily towards no god but had some doubts).

Yes, P = 1 is the theologically required Christian belief. However, and I've never even been Catholic, your post is rife with Atheist propaganda about Catholicism that shows you did not do your research before condemning an entire group of people. I'm not even sure how I ended up on the Xtian side of this debate, except I dislike fundamentalism of any stripe. I do take Atheists to task for their beliefs as often as I take Xtians to task for their beliefs. However, this is a site dedicated to Rationality. Which means if you're going to say "yes I'm sure", I expect you to have proof, no matter what side of the debate you're on. If you're not sure whether or not god exists, you're an agnostic. If you are sure (G=0), then you are an athiest. If you believe God exists, you could be any religion, not just Xtian. But for some reaosn Xtian's get picked on, because they're not as scary as Muslims but just as fervent. But lets get to you statements.

To begin with, the type of 4000 year old Earth, 6 day creation, no evolution debate is a Protestant belief, not Catholic. In fact, in 1950 Pope Pius XII said it was fine to discuss Human Evolution: "The Church does not forbid that...research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter." Source: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

Whether or not god created the universe, according to the bible (Where he created it twice, read Genesis 1, or just accept that it was a book written by people.) He certainly didn't create only two people. To answer the statement that only Adam and Eve were created by God AND that he resitricted himself Later to being god of just the Jewish nation, I bring you, Genesis 4:15-17

15 Then the LORD said to him, "Not so! If any one slays Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold." And the LORD put a mark on Cain, lest any who came upon him should kill him. 16 Then Cain went away from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, east of Eden. 17 Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch; and he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch.

Now wait, Cain, brother of Abel, went to the land of Nod, and found a wife. That sure does imply that, biblically, there were more people on Earth than Adam and Eve. Dangerous people too, since Cain was worried about being killed by them enough to ask God for protection. So, biblically, even if God created Adam and Eve, not everyone is a child of God. Which is good, because part of the horrifying great commission is to convert nonbelievers. The Biblical God is the God of the descendants of Adam and those who follow him.

Flood tales are rife in any ancient theology, including being in Gilgamesh. What a surprise they're in the bible too, mentioning that God protects his people. Shocking. There probably was a great flood at some point, but I'm linking to Wiki out of spite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_stories

Jesus still hasn't been reconciled by the Abrahamic religions (Another reason why god chose to protect them. Abraham trusted God, biblically. Seeing as God also gave human free will, biblically, why would he protect people who didn't trust him?)

There is nothing biblically about Jesus making Peter the pope. He did assign the apostles to the Great Commission of going forth and spreading his word, but even guys like Paul got in on that act later. The first official Pope was Anacletus.

Requires them to obey the pope? The Pope is only infallible sitting on his big chair. The pope is not God. Throught the history of Catholicism there have been hundreds of examples of not listening to the pope, especially when there were TWO popes. And if you think the church has problems now, read about the period between 860–1050. The pope is a man according to doctrine. Catholics can blame him all they like, and risk excommunication by disobeying him, but it's still an option. He's more like the king of an institution than a holy being.

However, thanks for proving my point. You listed a bunch of "facts" about Catholicism that either dealt with protestants, were folklore and tradition instead of doctrine, or were just incorrect. Don't forget that both sides have propaganda mills. Go to the source, and see what Xtians are supposed to believe. Then Take them to task. And anyway, am I not supposed to take both sides to task for irrationality? If you are being irrational, you are not excused because you are a fundamentalist. Go do your research.

Background: two years ago, I dropped out of college with a tremendous amount of debt. I'd failed several classes right before I dropped out, and generally made a big mess of things.

Still alive today, I'm beginning to step free of a lot of social conventions, letting go of shame and the habit of groveling, and learning to really value (and not just know I should value) important things. I am searching for how to make my strongest contribution. In the short term, that probably has to do with making a lot of money, but on the side, I have an inkling that working on my writing and learning to take in and express complicated ideas in speech, prose, poetry, and myth could come in handy. I'm only okay at helping other people with their hangups, but I think it'd be a great thing if I could get really good at overcoming my own, especially the difficult seeming ones.

I owe Michael Vassar for some particularly good advice from a few months back. He also pointed me in the direction of the ancient Cynics--they've been a huge help to me, philosophically.

Proposal 1 sidesteps the karma system mechanism too much. It wouldn't really encourage me to post more, and I don't think it'll improve quality beyond what a Discussion section would do.

Proposal 2 really doesn't address present lurkers' reluctance to comment. I would instead suggest all users get a small initial karma buffer that will absorb top post and comment downvotes. How that would work in conjuction with the top-post karma requirement, I'm not sure. The idea is to allow users to hide bad comments, give commenters a chance to integrate feedback, but still punish those who would use the "gimme's" as a chance for abuse.

I have high hopes for the discussion section--AT LEAST make sure to put in a plug for it in the not-logged-in welcome message. Having a smaller environment to practice, test out ideas, and get feedback would be great.

I hope people will just go ahead and ask, "Hey, if I invested more time thinking about this, do you think it would make a good post?"

Yeah, that's me.

I attended a meetup in Santa Barbara which I found largely to be a waste of time. The problem there--and I think, frankly, with LW in general--is that there just aren't that many of us with something insightful to say. (I certainly don't have much.) While it's great, I guess, that the participants acknowledge the importance behind some of the ideas championed by Yudkowsky and Hanson, most of us don't have anything to add. Some of us may be experts in other fields, but not in rationality.

Here's the perfect analogy: it's like listening to a bunch of college guys who've never played sports at a high level discuss a professional game; they all repeat the stuff they hear on ESPN, and the discussion isn't wildly wrong, but they're just regurgitating what they hear.

Do you feel like this described the NYC meetup at all? Do you think the meetup was worthwhile?

I added myself to the Meetup group. I live about an hour's driving distance from NYC.

What happens at the meetups?

Jasen, is your talk and any ensuing Q&A going to be recorded? I can't be there, but: advance cheers.