I'm glad to hear some form of CFAR experimentation/iteration is in the offing. (For those who don't know my handle, I'm Leah, who was a CFAR instructor/developer for a year). 

To try to summarize back, it sounds like this version of CFAR has a big focus on an exploratory mindset vs an instrumentalizing mindset (e.g. insert thoughtful, driven people into workshop, output x-risk-pilled possible researchers). While I was at CFAR, it was clear that some folks in the project were working there as their best applied effort to improve X-risk (this wasn't my reason for working there, so it did a lot less to shape my view of curriculum/participant recruitment and outcomes).

When I explained my job to people, I said I taught defensive driving for your brain (how to make the best use of your tools for reasoning + how to steer away from the circumstances where you'd be least able to reason well). 

If I expanded more, and talked a little more about System 1 and System 2, I'd say that we taught about how to more explicitly understand/actively apply System 2 reasoning, and how to treat System 1 as a rich source of data that System 2 might be prone to skip over too quickly, because it isn't well formatted as a source of input System 2 parses well. 

I'm curious how well this maps on to aCFAR's current understanding of itself. It seems like there's a bigger emphasis on a receptive posture to the world.

I'd say that part of how I saw success for participants was

-more comfort reasoning under uncertainty

-more of a sense of where you want to lean into risk (strong EV from trying out a low cost 1 in 10 chance more often vs "that didn't work") that is built up by prediction market games etc

-more ability to sit curiously with conflicting impulses/desires vs reasoning only verbally and then sticking to the "right" choice no matter how much you don't like it

I think of all of this as gaining an internal freedom to think and to act, and thus to take on more ambitious projects because you have a sense you'll be able to navigate turbulence.

l'd also say I substantially upped my physical exercise/found the habit easier to sustain post CFAR. 

Timeless decision theory as an alliance of selves/deciding once to decide always were particularly motivating

I agree it would be good to add a note about push polling, but it's also good to note that the absence of information is itself a choice! The most spare possible survey is not necessarily the most informative. The question of what is a neutral framing is a tricky one, and a question about the future that deliberate does not draw attention to responsibilities is not necessarily less push-poll-y than one that does.

One good idea to take out of this is that other people's ability to articulate their reasons for their belief can be weak—weak enough that it can distract from the strength of evidence for the actual belief. (More people can catch a ball than explain why it follows the arc that it does).

I love GEB! For these kids, it's not going to be a proof-based class. I'm more trying to get them to understand that stat is "a guide to how to update beliefs" rather than "a list of tests with sig/not sig outcomes."

I am interested but not planning to move to the Bay Area. I might move to Hyattsville, though: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/fareforward/2014/03/this-is-what-we-do/

• have kids
• polyamory
• read fiction
• earn to give
• animal rights

I'd be interested to see your results!

And I wouldn't invent a new name for ITTs for two reasons: First, you're cutting down on the ability of people who are interested to find other examples, but not teaching them the commonly used name (and limiting how many ITT-interested people find you!). Second, I think the ITT name makes sense, Turing's original example (which he called the Imitation Game) was basically an ITT for gender; it makes sense to keep the allusion.

Knowing where the AEDs are in your workplace is a good idea, too!

Yeah, I'd say so.