Thinking in ways which systematically arrive at truth. Tie between rationality and metacognition.
Echoing what Rob said above: these labels apply in very different ways. “Rationality” applies in a definition-like way, which is how it’s used on the page. Metacognition applies in an example-like way. You would never say “what we mean by metacognition is thinking in ways which systematically arrive at truth”, because even if the practice has that result, that’s not what the word means. (And I doubt the practice always does have that result.)
I really do think there’s a strong contingent of people in this space who are more interested in metacognition, and have a skepticism of attempts to become a rational agent.
Eh, my reaction to this is something like, then they can have their metacognitive movement. And it can overlap with the rationality community, but they shouldn’t be the same thing.
Echoing what Rob said above: these labels apply in very different ways. “Rationality” applies in a definition-like way, which is how it’s used on the page. Metacognition applies in an example-like way. You would never say “what we mean by metacognition is thinking in ways which systematically arrive at truth”, because even if the practice has that result, that’s not what the word means. (And I doubt the practice always does have that result.)
Eh, my reaction to this is something like, then they can have their metacognitive movement. And it can overlap with the rationality community, but they shouldn’t be the same thing.