Smarter/more rational/more logical people self-select themselves into the math/hard sciences to begin with (but they also have peers who aren’t likely to subscribe to certain irrational belief systems). I’ve never seen any real evidence that math/physics majors have ever become more rational as a result of their training (they’re basically taught material as if it were completely inapplicable to the real world). Transfer generally doesn’t seem to happen like that.
Personally, I believe that philosophy and economics are probably the best fields to train rationalists, although there are subsets of CS and statistics (Pearl’s causal modelling) that are also excellent for training rationalists. That being said, much of the philosophy curriculum does consist of ancient/medieval bullshit, so while it can definitely help a rationalist think, its material isn’t the best use of a rationalist’s time.
What would also work, is being a CNS (or economics) major at Caltech, or a Brain & Behavioral Sciences major at MIT
Personally, I believe that philosophy and economics are probably the best fields to train rationalists, although there are subsets of CS and statistics (Pearl’s causal modelling) that are also excellent for training rationalists.
I think Psychology, especially heuristics & biases, cognitive psychology, and social psychology should be included.
That’s certainly true, but those are not the mainstays of most psychology curricula (what also hurts, is the types of people who will be your peers). So unless you’re pursuing it at MIT/Caltech, I’d steer away from a psychology major (unless you can go straight into upper-division psych courses, which you can’t at my school)
Personally, I believe that philosophy and economics are probably the best fields to train rationalists, …
Rationality training should not be based on disciplines full of confusion. Philosophy is practically defined as a set of questions (so far) so confusing that they cannot be properly addressed by some branch of science. Economics is closely tied to politics and has (because of many practical reasons) a very limited possibility for empirical testing. They may be good disciplines to work on for an already advanced rationalist—and there are aspects of rationality which one can’t illustrate well on examples from physics—but one has better to master basic rationality before one comes to studying philosophy and economics.
I’ve never seen any real evidence that math/physics majors have ever become more rational as a result of their training.
Is there an evidence for other fields of study, namely for philosophy and economics?
Rationality training should not be based on disciplines full of confusion. Philosophy is practically defined as a set of questions (so far) so confusing that they cannot be properly addressed by some branch of science. Economics is closely tied to politics and has (because of many practical reasons) a very limited possibility for empirical testing. They may be good disciplines to work on for an already advanced rationalist—and there are aspects of rationality which one can’t illustrate well on examples from physics—but one has better to master basic rationality before one comes to studying philosophy and economics.
Ah yes, that’s definitely true. I was really only pointing out the fields that could provide the best training for those who were LessWrong users. Which doesn’t take that much—it’s a lot easier to detect the bullshit in philosophy/economics than to learn the rationality inherent within them.
Is there an evidence for other fields of study, namely for philosophy and economics?
Perhaps not. All I know is that a substantial number of rationalists end up pursuing examples from philosophy and economics
But in general, the best training for rationalists cannot come out of most college programs (outside of Caltech/MIT).
Smarter/more rational/more logical people self-select themselves into the math/hard sciences to begin with (but they also have peers who aren’t likely to subscribe to certain irrational belief systems). I’ve never seen any real evidence that math/physics majors have ever become more rational as a result of their training (they’re basically taught material as if it were completely inapplicable to the real world). Transfer generally doesn’t seem to happen like that.
Personally, I believe that philosophy and economics are probably the best fields to train rationalists, although there are subsets of CS and statistics (Pearl’s causal modelling) that are also excellent for training rationalists. That being said, much of the philosophy curriculum does consist of ancient/medieval bullshit, so while it can definitely help a rationalist think, its material isn’t the best use of a rationalist’s time.
What would also work, is being a CNS (or economics) major at Caltech, or a Brain & Behavioral Sciences major at MIT
I think Psychology, especially heuristics & biases, cognitive psychology, and social psychology should be included.
That’s certainly true, but those are not the mainstays of most psychology curricula (what also hurts, is the types of people who will be your peers). So unless you’re pursuing it at MIT/Caltech, I’d steer away from a psychology major (unless you can go straight into upper-division psych courses, which you can’t at my school)
Rationality training should not be based on disciplines full of confusion. Philosophy is practically defined as a set of questions (so far) so confusing that they cannot be properly addressed by some branch of science. Economics is closely tied to politics and has (because of many practical reasons) a very limited possibility for empirical testing. They may be good disciplines to work on for an already advanced rationalist—and there are aspects of rationality which one can’t illustrate well on examples from physics—but one has better to master basic rationality before one comes to studying philosophy and economics.
Is there an evidence for other fields of study, namely for philosophy and economics?
Ah yes, that’s definitely true. I was really only pointing out the fields that could provide the best training for those who were LessWrong users. Which doesn’t take that much—it’s a lot easier to detect the bullshit in philosophy/economics than to learn the rationality inherent within them.
Perhaps not. All I know is that a substantial number of rationalists end up pursuing examples from philosophy and economics
But in general, the best training for rationalists cannot come out of most college programs (outside of Caltech/MIT).