This is Ren, and I was like ”?!?” by the sentence in the post: “There is a significant degree of overlap between people who worked with or at CFAR and people at the Monastic Academy.”
I am having trouble engaging with LW comments in general so thankfully Duncan is here with #somefacts. I pretty much agree with his list of informative facts.
More facts:
Adom / Quincy did a two-month apprenticeship at MAPLE, a couple years after being employed by CFAR. He and I are the only CFAR employees who’ve trained at MAPLE.
CFAR-adjacent people visit MAPLE sometimes, maybe for about a week in length.
Some CFAR workshop alums have trained at MAPLE or Oak as apprentices or residents, but I would largely not call them “people who worked with or at CFAR.” There are a lot of CFAR alums, and there are also a lot of MAPLE alums.
MAPLE and Oak have applied for EA grants in the past, which have resulted in them communicating with some CFAR-y type people like Anna Salamon, but this does not feel like a central example of “interaction” of the kind implied.
The inferential gap between the MAPLE and rationalist worldview is pretty large. There’s definitely an interesting “thing” about ex-CFAR staff turning to trad religion that you might want to squint at (I am one example, out of, I believe, three total), but I don’t like the way the OP tacks this sentence onto a section as though it were some kind of argument or evidence for some vague something something. And I think that’s why my reaction was ”?!?” and not just “hmm.”
But also, I cannot deny that the intuition jessicata has about MAPLE is not entirely off either. It gives off the same smells. But I still don’t like the placement of the sentence in the OP because I think it assumes too much.
This is Ren, and I was like ”?!?” by the sentence in the post: “There is a significant degree of overlap between people who worked with or at CFAR and people at the Monastic Academy.”
I am having trouble engaging with LW comments in general so thankfully Duncan is here with #somefacts. I pretty much agree with his list of informative facts.
More facts:
Adom / Quincy did a two-month apprenticeship at MAPLE, a couple years after being employed by CFAR. He and I are the only CFAR employees who’ve trained at MAPLE.
CFAR-adjacent people visit MAPLE sometimes, maybe for about a week in length.
Some CFAR workshop alums have trained at MAPLE or Oak as apprentices or residents, but I would largely not call them “people who worked with or at CFAR.” There are a lot of CFAR alums, and there are also a lot of MAPLE alums.
MAPLE and Oak have applied for EA grants in the past, which have resulted in them communicating with some CFAR-y type people like Anna Salamon, but this does not feel like a central example of “interaction” of the kind implied.
The inferential gap between the MAPLE and rationalist worldview is pretty large. There’s definitely an interesting “thing” about ex-CFAR staff turning to trad religion that you might want to squint at (I am one example, out of, I believe, three total), but I don’t like the way the OP tacks this sentence onto a section as though it were some kind of argument or evidence for some vague something something. And I think that’s why my reaction was ”?!?” and not just “hmm.”
But also, I cannot deny that the intuition jessicata has about MAPLE is not entirely off either. It gives off the same smells. But I still don’t like the placement of the sentence in the OP because I think it assumes too much.