It’s my understanding that most people at 15 want to be treated as being adults. When I was 15 I certainly didn’t want to read “political philosophy for 15 year olds” but I read Hobbes, Machiavelli and Rousseau.
I doubt teenagers who are really interested in rational thinking would go into a “rational thinking for teenagers”-group.
I agree. And the “total immersion” effect of LessWrong is really healthy for young minds, but I am not sure you have understood the purpose of this would-be project. If you were an English teacher, would you not be interested in a “rational thinking for teachers” group? I know that if I was an English teacher with access to the rationality training resources found on LessWrong I would spend a while thinking about “Guessing the Teacher’s Password.” I would want to iron out as many of the logical fallacies, teaching errors and understanding errors that can take place in a classroom, such as “Guessing the Teacher’s Password.” I would want to work in the best possible environment for learning and be the best possible teacher. I can still read Hobbes, Machiavelli and Rousseau. No one is going to stop me. But as a teacher I am particularly interested in making sure that I am doing my job in a way that trains thinkers and not answer-anticipating machines. Would it be helpful to have a rationality group devoted to helping me do my job rationally? Yes. I think most people would like to be able to know how to go about their jobs in a rational way. Would you?
The same goes for teenagers. Most of us are students. Many of us aspire to be musicians, some of us aspire to be rationalists. When you were 15, would you have been interested in understanding the inner-workings of a teenage brain through puberty? Would approaching college applications in a rational way be a useful tool for 15 year old ChristianKl? Maybe, maybe not. But it would be nice to be able to make that choice, to have the resources available to you. Being a teenager is a job, sometimes a tough job. Some of us would like to understand how to approach it rationally. What are some good thought-provokign ways to spend your summer vacation? What enrichment opportunities are there for teenagers? How to reason with parents? And as for doubting rational teenagers would join such a group, I am not sure but I think I have experimental evidence disproving that statement. A LessWrong Highschoolers Facebook group (https://www.facebook.com/groups/201577993258819/). You can check if they are really interested in rational thinking, but it is my understanding that they are. So, possibly, we can put your doubts at ease. You can cater to someone’s needs without dumbing things down and continue to treat them as adults. Because even though we want to be treated as adults, we want to be rational adults and LessWrong can and (probably) should help us in that endeavor. Or does “A community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality” not apply if your under 20? It is possible to help someone without damaging their (admittedly inflated) self-esteem. And Hobbes, Machiavelli and Rousseau would be equally at home in a LessWrong for Teenagers section. Your teenager hood seems to have been full of beautiful philosophical readings, don’t you want everyone to have that chance?
And the “total immersion” effect of LessWrong is really healthy for young minds, but I am not sure you have understood the purpose of this would-be project. If you were an English teacher, would you not be interested in a “rational thinking for teachers” group?
We could have “rational thinking for teachers”, a “rational thinking for programmers”, a “rational thinking for musicians”, a “rational thinking for women” and a “rational thinking for teenagers” group. At the end you have 10 different groups. I don’t think that’s a good way to proceed.
When you were 15, would you have been interested in understanding the inner-workings of a teenage brain through puberty?
I don’t see how that discussion would be unwelcome on LessWrong. If you have such a discussion on LessWrong it’s likely that people who aren’t teenagers contribute their knowledge. That’s a good thing for the discussion.
A rational teenager who speaks about how parents are in general overcontroling doesn’t need another teenager with the same perspective to agree with him. He profits much more if someone with a different opinion than him contributes to the discussion.
Would approaching college applications in a rational way be a useful tool for 15 year old ChristianKl?
Given that I live in Germany a discussion about US college applications wouldn’t have been more valuable to me back then, then it’s now.
That’s a bit different. The fact that the group exist doesn’t show that the people who are members of the group don’t feel welcome on LessWrong.
23 people are also not enough to have a functioning LessWrong forum.
Or does “A community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality” not apply if your under 20?
Of course it applies. Come and open your discussions about college applications and the workings of the teenage brain right here. You are welcome on LessWrong proper and don’t need a separate room to have that discussion.
We could have “rational thinking for teachers”, a “rational thinking for programmers”, a “rational thinking for musicians”, a “rational thinking for women” and a “rational thinking for teenagers” group. At the end you have 10 different groups. I don’t think that’s a good way to proceed.
Not to mention that it carries the implication that the default rationalist is not a member of any of these categories.
We could have “rational thinking for teachers”, a “rational thinking for programmers”, a “rational thinking for musicians”, a “rational thinking for women” and a “rational thinking for teenagers” group. At the end you have 10 different groups.
It depends.
If the Discussion page gets flooded by dozen “rationality for musicians” articles, it could make the members without musical interests feel excluded. One such article in a few months would not have the same effect. And it could make the musicians very happy.
One can be more specific about “applied rationality for musicians” than about “applied rationality for artists”, which is still more specific than “applied rationality” in general. Perhaps we should replace “rational” with “optimal” here. But anyway, the goal of rationality is to win. We can win more by sharing the fruit we already found; even if doing that does not directly increase one’s fruit-seeking skills.
(Personally, I would love to see the “rational thinking for programmers” topic, but I am afraid that this topic has a very high chance of jumping to a dozen articles per month when the taboo is broken, so I will rather not break that taboo. But writing for teenagers seems much safer.)
If the Discussion page gets flooded by dozen “rationality for musicians” articles, it could make the members without musical interests feel excluded.
If you do have the discussion page flooded by dozen of “rationality for musicians” articles it’s time to open a separate forum for them.
I don’t see a reason to open that forum before that happens.
This may have been true back in the day, but with the way our culture has progressed, I would think that LW could be like Hobbes, Machiavelli, and Rousseau for a new generation. Instead of needing to browse the bookstores for this type of material teenagers could congregate on these forums. I would just use a term that was not “teenagers.”
Can you make LW flyers and pass them out at your school, perhaps? Do you have a school newspaper? Maybe you could give this site a plug? Start attending meetups?
It’s my understanding that most people at 15 want to be treated as being adults. When I was 15 I certainly didn’t want to read “political philosophy for 15 year olds” but I read Hobbes, Machiavelli and Rousseau.
I doubt teenagers who are really interested in rational thinking would go into a “rational thinking for teenagers”-group.
I agree. And the “total immersion” effect of LessWrong is really healthy for young minds, but I am not sure you have understood the purpose of this would-be project. If you were an English teacher, would you not be interested in a “rational thinking for teachers” group? I know that if I was an English teacher with access to the rationality training resources found on LessWrong I would spend a while thinking about “Guessing the Teacher’s Password.” I would want to iron out as many of the logical fallacies, teaching errors and understanding errors that can take place in a classroom, such as “Guessing the Teacher’s Password.” I would want to work in the best possible environment for learning and be the best possible teacher. I can still read Hobbes, Machiavelli and Rousseau. No one is going to stop me. But as a teacher I am particularly interested in making sure that I am doing my job in a way that trains thinkers and not answer-anticipating machines. Would it be helpful to have a rationality group devoted to helping me do my job rationally? Yes. I think most people would like to be able to know how to go about their jobs in a rational way. Would you?
The same goes for teenagers. Most of us are students. Many of us aspire to be musicians, some of us aspire to be rationalists. When you were 15, would you have been interested in understanding the inner-workings of a teenage brain through puberty? Would approaching college applications in a rational way be a useful tool for 15 year old ChristianKl? Maybe, maybe not. But it would be nice to be able to make that choice, to have the resources available to you. Being a teenager is a job, sometimes a tough job. Some of us would like to understand how to approach it rationally. What are some good thought-provokign ways to spend your summer vacation? What enrichment opportunities are there for teenagers? How to reason with parents? And as for doubting rational teenagers would join such a group, I am not sure but I think I have experimental evidence disproving that statement. A LessWrong Highschoolers Facebook group (https://www.facebook.com/groups/201577993258819/). You can check if they are really interested in rational thinking, but it is my understanding that they are. So, possibly, we can put your doubts at ease. You can cater to someone’s needs without dumbing things down and continue to treat them as adults. Because even though we want to be treated as adults, we want to be rational adults and LessWrong can and (probably) should help us in that endeavor. Or does “A community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality” not apply if your under 20? It is possible to help someone without damaging their (admittedly inflated) self-esteem. And Hobbes, Machiavelli and Rousseau would be equally at home in a LessWrong for Teenagers section. Your teenager hood seems to have been full of beautiful philosophical readings, don’t you want everyone to have that chance?
We could have “rational thinking for teachers”, a “rational thinking for programmers”, a “rational thinking for musicians”, a “rational thinking for women” and a “rational thinking for teenagers” group. At the end you have 10 different groups. I don’t think that’s a good way to proceed.
I don’t see how that discussion would be unwelcome on LessWrong. If you have such a discussion on LessWrong it’s likely that people who aren’t teenagers contribute their knowledge. That’s a good thing for the discussion.
A rational teenager who speaks about how parents are in general overcontroling doesn’t need another teenager with the same perspective to agree with him. He profits much more if someone with a different opinion than him contributes to the discussion.
Given that I live in Germany a discussion about US college applications wouldn’t have been more valuable to me back then, then it’s now.
That’s a bit different. The fact that the group exist doesn’t show that the people who are members of the group don’t feel welcome on LessWrong. 23 people are also not enough to have a functioning LessWrong forum.
Of course it applies. Come and open your discussions about college applications and the workings of the teenage brain right here. You are welcome on LessWrong proper and don’t need a separate room to have that discussion.
Not to mention that it carries the implication that the default rationalist is not a member of any of these categories.
It depends.
If the Discussion page gets flooded by dozen “rationality for musicians” articles, it could make the members without musical interests feel excluded. One such article in a few months would not have the same effect. And it could make the musicians very happy.
One can be more specific about “applied rationality for musicians” than about “applied rationality for artists”, which is still more specific than “applied rationality” in general. Perhaps we should replace “rational” with “optimal” here. But anyway, the goal of rationality is to win. We can win more by sharing the fruit we already found; even if doing that does not directly increase one’s fruit-seeking skills.
(Personally, I would love to see the “rational thinking for programmers” topic, but I am afraid that this topic has a very high chance of jumping to a dozen articles per month when the taboo is broken, so I will rather not break that taboo. But writing for teenagers seems much safer.)
If you do have the discussion page flooded by dozen of “rationality for musicians” articles it’s time to open a separate forum for them. I don’t see a reason to open that forum before that happens.
Maybe “optimizing” rather than “optimal”? It’s hard to be sure you’ve gotten something as right as possible.
This may have been true back in the day, but with the way our culture has progressed, I would think that LW could be like Hobbes, Machiavelli, and Rousseau for a new generation. Instead of needing to browse the bookstores for this type of material teenagers could congregate on these forums. I would just use a term that was not “teenagers.”
Can you make LW flyers and pass them out at your school, perhaps? Do you have a school newspaper? Maybe you could give this site a plug? Start attending meetups?