2017-09-25 RRG Notes

Why should anyone be motivated to learn rationality?
Rationalists don't seem to be any more happy or successful than non-rationalists
There ought to be a discipline of cognition that that makes its students visibly more competent and formidable
But we don't see that in the real world
We haven't gotten together and systematized our skills
How do you systematically test rationality programs and verify that they're making people more rational?
Why aren't rationalists surrounded by a "visible aura of formidability"?
- Less systematic training
- More difficult to verify that you're being rational
- It's a lot easier to convince people of the benefits of greater physical strength than it is to convince people of the benefits of greater mental strength
People lack the sense that rationality is something that should be systematized and trained like a martial art
Counterpoint

The epistemic rigor of martial arts declined severely once fights became highly constrained by rules
How does epistemic viciousness arise?
- The art is seen as sacred
- People become emotionally invested in certain techniques
- Incoming students have no choice but to trust the teacher
- Excessive deference to historical masters (old techniques cannot be beaten, only rediscovered)
- Inability to test methods discourages training

Robyn Dawes
- Judgement Under Uncertainty
- Rational Choice in an Uncertain World
- House of Cards: Psychology and Psychotherapy Based On Myth
Rorschach ink blot tests don't reveal anything about the patient
No statistical difference between different types of psychotherapy
The entire benefit of psychotherapy appears to come from just talking to someone
Yet, there are many different traditions (schools) of psychotherapy
- The proliferation occurs even though there is a dearth of experimental evidence
- The way to gain prestige was to devise a new technique and tell good stories about why that technique should work
If you're going to create an organized practice of anything, you need a way to tell how good you're doing that corresponds to something measurable and replicable

There is a possible art of rationality
- Attaining a map that reflects the territory
- Directing the future into states that you prefer
It is possible to be more rational than any current practitioner of rationality
But how do we verify our ideas on how to improve?
3 levels of usefulness
- Reputational
  - Ground reputations in realistic trials based on something other than social reputation and good stories
- Experimental
  - Create statistical measures that are replicable and rigorous
- Organizational
  - Create measures that are difficult to game

Why is it that flying saucer cults are better at coordinating than rationalists?
Flying saucer cults can use emotional manipulation and a variety of other tactics to ensure cooperation
Unfortunately, this means that it's very easy for them to become unmoored from reality
Is there a way to get rationalists to cooperate effectively while maintaining an accurate view of the world?
This lack of cooperation highlights one of the problems in the current rationality knowledgebase - emphasis on individual rationality rather than group rationality
Tolerating only disagreement is as irrational as tolerating only agreement
- Do any rationalist communities only tolerate disagreement? Yes, there's the normal Internet discussion thing where you examine ideas and try to poke holes in them, but rationalist communities I've been part of have been actually among the most quick to agree that an idea is good, if it's actually seen as good by members of the community
- I think that the problems of coordination have much more to do with the unreliability of the rationality community than they do with our inherent social norm against cooperation
If you're doing worse with more knowledge, it's a sign that you haven't fully internalized the lessons of rationality
We need to be more okay with strong emotions
We need to be more okay with the notion that some things are worth sacrificing for