The main problem with teaching generic success skills is already “those who can’t, teach”. Donations only exacerbate this problem by lowering the barrier to entry.
Only when there isn’t a secondary goal in mind. For example, apprenticeship is a process where someone who clearly can do, teaches, because the master recognizes that some of their tasks are better performed by novice apprentices than by themselves—and the only way to guarantee quality novice apprentices is to create them.
For CFAR, the magnum opus seems to be human uplift—a process where the doing and the teaching are simply different levels of the same process.
The point is that there are many people who want to spread their message on how to effectively attain your goals. Generally, the quality of message is going to positively correlate with success and thus negatively correlate with being short on money or depending on charitable contributions.
I am not sure what is your definition of “success”, but why exactly should getting money through contributions be worse than getting money by any other means?
If “success” is just a black box for doing what you wanted to do, then CFAR asking for money, getting donations, and using them to teach their curricullum is, by definition, a success.
If “success” is something else, then… please be more specific.
If “success” is just a black box for doing what you wanted to do, then CFAR asking for money, getting donations, and using them to teach their curricullum
Wait. The success at extracting from you this specific piece of money (the utility of donating which you ponder), is not yet decided. Furthermore, the prior success at finding actions that produce a lot of money, must have been quite low.
Artisan masters (or, to some extent, college professors, at least in scientific and technical fields) generally have a track record of being good at doing what they teach.
Self-help instructors usually only have a track record of being good at making a living from being self-help instructors (which includes being good at self promotion to the relevant audience). As far as I know, CFAR staff are no different in that regard.
EDIT:
And if you give them donations, they don’t even have to be good at it!
Self-help instructors usually only have a track record of being good at making a living from being self-help instructors (which includes being good at self promotion to the relevant audience).
As far as I know, CFAR staff are no different in that regard.
While to some extent I think this criticism may be valid, especially given the fact that it was a known factor prior to the foundation of CFAR, I think it’s not entirely fair. Given that CFAR is more or less attempting to create a new curriculum and area of study, it isn’t entirely clear what it would look like to have a proven track record in the field.
Now obviously CFAR would be more impressive if it was being run by Daniel Kahneman. But given that that isn’t going to happen, I think the organization that we have is doing a fairly good job, especially given that many of their staff members have impressive accomplishments in other domains.
it isn’t entirely clear what it would look like to have a proven track record in the field.
They want to teach people how to be rational, professionally successful, and altruistic, hence it would be desirable if the staff had strong credentials in that areas, such as being successful scientists, inventors, entrepreneurs, having done something that unquestionably helped many other people, etc.
especially given that many of their staff members have impressive accomplishments in other domains.
Such as?
According to the OP, CFAR has five full time employees. I suppose they are the first five people listed in the website (Galef, Salamon, Smith, Critch and Amodei). Galef is a blogger and podcaster, Amodei was a theatre stage manager, the others are mathematicians: Critch is the only PhD of them and has done some research in abstract computer science and applied math. I don’t have the expertise to evaluate his work, does it count as an impressive accomplishment? Salamon mostly worked at SIAI/SI/MIRI and didn’t publish much outside MIRI own venues and philosophical conferences. Smith, I don’t know because I cant find much information online.
EDIT:
Actually, according to the profile, Smith has a PhD in math education.
it isn’t entirely clear what it would look like to have a proven track record in the field.
Having a track record of creating something else that’s unambiguously useful would be a start.
Mostly, people attempt to do grand and exceptional things either due to having evidence (prior high performance, for example), or due to having delusions of grandeur (prior history of such delusions). Those are two very distinct categories.
On the other hand, the reason said enterprise is seeking donations is largely that the most involved member’s prior endeavours failed to monetize despite, in some cases, presence of some innate talents. A situation suggestive not of exceptionally superior but rather inferior rationality.
The main problem with teaching generic success skills is already “those who can’t, teach”. Donations only exacerbate this problem by lowering the barrier to entry.
Only when there isn’t a secondary goal in mind. For example, apprenticeship is a process where someone who clearly can do, teaches, because the master recognizes that some of their tasks are better performed by novice apprentices than by themselves—and the only way to guarantee quality novice apprentices is to create them.
For CFAR, the magnum opus seems to be human uplift—a process where the doing and the teaching are simply different levels of the same process.
The point is that there are many people who want to spread their message on how to effectively attain your goals. Generally, the quality of message is going to positively correlate with success and thus negatively correlate with being short on money or depending on charitable contributions.
I am not sure what is your definition of “success”, but why exactly should getting money through contributions be worse than getting money by any other means?
If “success” is just a black box for doing what you wanted to do, then CFAR asking for money, getting donations, and using them to teach their curricullum is, by definition, a success.
If “success” is something else, then… please be more specific.
Wait. The success at extracting from you this specific piece of money (the utility of donating which you ponder), is not yet decided. Furthermore, the prior success at finding actions that produce a lot of money, must have been quite low.
edit: besides, the end goal is wealth creation.
Artisan masters (or, to some extent, college professors, at least in scientific and technical fields) generally have a track record of being good at doing what they teach.
Self-help instructors usually only have a track record of being good at making a living from being self-help instructors (which includes being good at self promotion to the relevant audience).
As far as I know, CFAR staff are no different in that regard.
EDIT:
And if you give them donations, they don’t even have to be good at it!
While to some extent I think this criticism may be valid, especially given the fact that it was a known factor prior to the foundation of CFAR, I think it’s not entirely fair. Given that CFAR is more or less attempting to create a new curriculum and area of study, it isn’t entirely clear what it would look like to have a proven track record in the field.
Now obviously CFAR would be more impressive if it was being run by Daniel Kahneman. But given that that isn’t going to happen, I think the organization that we have is doing a fairly good job, especially given that many of their staff members have impressive accomplishments in other domains.
They want to teach people how to be rational, professionally successful, and altruistic, hence it would be desirable if the staff had strong credentials in that areas, such as being successful scientists, inventors, entrepreneurs, having done something that unquestionably helped many other people, etc.
Such as?
According to the OP, CFAR has five full time employees. I suppose they are the first five people listed in the website (Galef, Salamon, Smith, Critch and Amodei).
Galef is a blogger and podcaster, Amodei was a theatre stage manager, the others are mathematicians:
Critch is the only PhD of them and has done some research in abstract computer science and applied math. I don’t have the expertise to evaluate his work, does it count as an impressive accomplishment?
Salamon mostly worked at SIAI/SI/MIRI and didn’t publish much outside MIRI own venues and philosophical conferences.
Smith, I don’t know because I cant find much information online.
EDIT:
Actually, according to the profile, Smith has a PhD in math education.
Impressiveness exists in the map, not the territory—but I certainly think so.
Kinda. Science is inter-subjective. Whether or not somebody’s contributions are considered breakthroughs by domain experts is an empirical question.
Having a track record of creating something else that’s unambiguously useful would be a start.
Mostly, people attempt to do grand and exceptional things either due to having evidence (prior high performance, for example), or due to having delusions of grandeur (prior history of such delusions). Those are two very distinct categories.
Certainly—that’s what I was discussing when I wrote “many of their staff members have impressive accomplishments in other domains.”
On the other hand, the reason said enterprise is seeking donations is largely that the most involved member’s prior endeavours failed to monetize despite, in some cases, presence of some innate talents. A situation suggestive not of exceptionally superior but rather inferior rationality.