Great idea.
If you have practicing public speaking on your list then consider founding your own Toastmasters Groups. I became a member some years ago, and profited from it.
The provided teaching materials are the most empirically based manuals I have seen so far. And the extended practice helped.
I for one would absolutely love a rationalist Toastmasters. I haven’t found a good fit with any of the existing groups in the Bay Area.
Do you know anything specifically about the formation of new Toastmasters groups?
A rationalist Toastmasters Speakers Bureau in the area could also be really cool and useful, by the way. I know of a number of groups who would love to host speakers on LW topics.
I wonder whether a public speaking class could be taught over the internet. I know nothing about how this skill is taught, but I would guess that it is much like any other performance art. First you watch people doing it well, then a group leader shows you how to analyze good performance. Next you each try doing it yourself, and the leader guides the members of the group in critiquing each other. Rinse and repeat, for each specific skill or genre in this art form.
I never founded a group myself. But maybe can give a few pointers.
First make sure you actually want to do that. Going to other groups as guest is free and easy, and you can check out if the structure of the Organization is something you like. Then you need a few like-minded people. There is a minimum number for new groups.
Keep in mind that it is a training group for speaking in general. One does not practice to convince in a specific topic, but the speaking itself—which would classify it as a dark art, and maybe not even be what you look for.
For the actual founding the easiest way is to contact another local group and ask for assistance. There is some paperwork, and then holding the regular meetings.
Having a few experienced members is a really good way to get a new group going.
Dissing training in speaking because it isn’t specific to persuading people of true facts is like dissing target practice because it isn’t specific to self defence or sport. If we’re going to use the term “Dark Arts”, it should refer to things that are actually shady, not potentially so.
rationality might have at some point evolved from the dark arts themselves, i.e. human propensity to make up reasons as they go might have lead to their being better minds at making up reasons and arguments-I read that in an article somewhere but can’t remember where exactly.
The dark arts get too much mud slung at them and IMO warrant further study,careful dissection by wise men wearing all the necessary charms and offering appropriate sacrifices should be sufficient ..:)
I am somewhat afraid of the fact that convincing can be tought seperate from reasoned arguing, that not the best reason wins, but the most enthusiastic speaker, and the one who can best make his point in the eyes of the people. I am surprised on the spread of public debates and how many people change opinions during a debate.
I still want to learn it, but I do not wish to persuade unreasoned.
Notice the effects in charismatic leaders how they become inable to get good criticism of their ideas.
I am somewhat afraid of the fact that convincing can be tought seperate from reasoned arguing, that not the best reason wins, but the most enthusiastic speaker, and the one who can best make his point in the eyes of the people.
Fear of a fact is not a good reason to ignore a fact.
… but I do not wish to persuade unreasoned.
A good argument, like a good novel, can work on several levels.
what makes an irrational argument convincing is human biases, but what I think lacks is more focused treatment of things like good writing or effective signaling, I haven’t read all of LW though so it might just be a simple task of collecting articles, but I don’t feel that’s the case, or is it?
I’m a bit uncomfortable with calling this a “dark art” (perhaps because teaching dark arts seems to be such a dangerous occupation). But there is a “rainbow art” consisting of equal parts of attention-grabbing and persuasion; an art which is necessary even if it is a good argument that you are trying to propagate. I would like to learn something about that art. Ideally, by means of an online class.
I can think of at least 5 different persuasion media that I would like to become skillful at.
Stand up lectures—like the TED lectures, for example
Powerpoint-style presentations with voiceovers.
Blog postings (and sequences of blog postings)
Publishable academic-style papers on technical topics.
Works of fiction with a didactic subtext—like HPMOR and Luminosity.
I’d bet lots of other people would like to become skillful at these things too.
I’d bet we have people here who are good enough at these things that they could lead a kind of online study group focused on learning and/or improving skills like these.
My track record with completing courses online and staying on task is terrible, whereas I’m fantastic about remembering to show up to things in person and I really learn well from experiencing things when physically present. If this were a class in Berkeley (relating back to the original point of this posting tangentially) I would definitely be there taking it.
Also, I like the term “rainbow art”, but rainbows are linked with the indelibly good in my mind. What about “grey arts”? Or just tools?
sounds like a good idea (though I’m not giving up on the Dark Arts class/sequence yet ..), given that OP does “encourage you to post your skills here anyway” I think bringing this up in the open thread or as a general call to candidates should be worthwhile, this can effectively and depending on the instructions make short work of most barriers to publishing an LW top level post, given relevant and interesting topics of course.
we have been experiencing a slump of late, I think this potentially helps in overcoming the slow stagnation that happens in all forums after the early ‘glory days’ are over.
precisely the reasons why we want better dark art skills just for the sake of countering them at least? I’m half tempted to start a thread on this, but I can’t write as clearly as most here.
I too feel like I lack the wherewithal to write top-level LessWrong posts, but since this is a topic I too am interested in, perhaps we could collaborate and produce something worthy between us. If your issue is not being able to write clearly, I would gladly proofread and comment on drafts.
Great idea. If you have practicing public speaking on your list then consider founding your own Toastmasters Groups. I became a member some years ago, and profited from it. The provided teaching materials are the most empirically based manuals I have seen so far. And the extended practice helped.
I have two bronze national medals in speech/debate, and a host of toastmaster awards.
Public speaking has been the most useful soft skill I’ve learned in my life!
I for one would absolutely love a rationalist Toastmasters. I haven’t found a good fit with any of the existing groups in the Bay Area.
Do you know anything specifically about the formation of new Toastmasters groups?
A rationalist Toastmasters Speakers Bureau in the area could also be really cool and useful, by the way. I know of a number of groups who would love to host speakers on LW topics.
I wonder whether a public speaking class could be taught over the internet. I know nothing about how this skill is taught, but I would guess that it is much like any other performance art. First you watch people doing it well, then a group leader shows you how to analyze good performance. Next you each try doing it yourself, and the leader guides the members of the group in critiquing each other. Rinse and repeat, for each specific skill or genre in this art form.
I never founded a group myself. But maybe can give a few pointers. First make sure you actually want to do that. Going to other groups as guest is free and easy, and you can check out if the structure of the Organization is something you like. Then you need a few like-minded people. There is a minimum number for new groups. Keep in mind that it is a training group for speaking in general. One does not practice to convince in a specific topic, but the speaking itself—which would classify it as a dark art, and maybe not even be what you look for. For the actual founding the easiest way is to contact another local group and ask for assistance. There is some paperwork, and then holding the regular meetings. Having a few experienced members is a really good way to get a new group going.
Dissing training in speaking because it isn’t specific to persuading people of true facts is like dissing target practice because it isn’t specific to self defence or sport. If we’re going to use the term “Dark Arts”, it should refer to things that are actually shady, not potentially so.
rationality might have at some point evolved from the dark arts themselves, i.e. human propensity to make up reasons as they go might have lead to their being better minds at making up reasons and arguments-I read that in an article somewhere but can’t remember where exactly.
The dark arts get too much mud slung at them and IMO warrant further study,careful dissection by wise men wearing all the necessary charms and offering appropriate sacrifices should be sufficient ..:)
I am somewhat afraid of the fact that convincing can be tought seperate from reasoned arguing, that not the best reason wins, but the most enthusiastic speaker, and the one who can best make his point in the eyes of the people. I am surprised on the spread of public debates and how many people change opinions during a debate. I still want to learn it, but I do not wish to persuade unreasoned.
Notice the effects in charismatic leaders how they become inable to get good criticism of their ideas.
Fear of a fact is not a good reason to ignore a fact.
A good argument, like a good novel, can work on several levels.
ok, so I’m considering that a discussion post at least should be made, any thoughts?
it could potentially be part of the sequences, although Eliezer and others do cover the Dark Arts I don’t recall a dedicated thread. I found some good examples from a quick googling, like Yvain’s Defense Against The Dark Arts: Case Study #1 or The Power of Positivist Thinking
what makes an irrational argument convincing is human biases, but what I think lacks is more focused treatment of things like good writing or effective signaling, I haven’t read all of LW though so it might just be a simple task of collecting articles, but I don’t feel that’s the case, or is it?
I’m a bit uncomfortable with calling this a “dark art” (perhaps because teaching dark arts seems to be such a dangerous occupation). But there is a “rainbow art” consisting of equal parts of attention-grabbing and persuasion; an art which is necessary even if it is a good argument that you are trying to propagate. I would like to learn something about that art. Ideally, by means of an online class.
I can think of at least 5 different persuasion media that I would like to become skillful at.
Stand up lectures—like the TED lectures, for example
Powerpoint-style presentations with voiceovers.
Blog postings (and sequences of blog postings)
Publishable academic-style papers on technical topics.
Works of fiction with a didactic subtext—like HPMOR and Luminosity.
I’d bet lots of other people would like to become skillful at these things too.
I’d bet we have people here who are good enough at these things that they could lead a kind of online study group focused on learning and/or improving skills like these.
My track record with completing courses online and staying on task is terrible, whereas I’m fantastic about remembering to show up to things in person and I really learn well from experiencing things when physically present. If this were a class in Berkeley (relating back to the original point of this posting tangentially) I would definitely be there taking it.
Also, I like the term “rainbow art”, but rainbows are linked with the indelibly good in my mind. What about “grey arts”? Or just tools?
sounds like a good idea (though I’m not giving up on the Dark Arts class/sequence yet ..), given that OP does “encourage you to post your skills here anyway” I think bringing this up in the open thread or as a general call to candidates should be worthwhile, this can effectively and depending on the instructions make short work of most barriers to publishing an LW top level post, given relevant and interesting topics of course.
we have been experiencing a slump of late, I think this potentially helps in overcoming the slow stagnation that happens in all forums after the early ‘glory days’ are over.
precisely the reasons why we want better dark art skills just for the sake of countering them at least? I’m half tempted to start a thread on this, but I can’t write as clearly as most here.
I too feel like I lack the wherewithal to write top-level LessWrong posts, but since this is a topic I too am interested in, perhaps we could collaborate and produce something worthy between us. If your issue is not being able to write clearly, I would gladly proofread and comment on drafts.
Part of what the Discussion section is for is a place to post drafts of potential top-level posts for discussion and criticism.