If the sequences were being repackaged as a self-help book targeted towards the widest possible audience, what would they look like?
More simple language, many examples, many exercises.
And then the biggest problem would be that most people would just skip the exercises, remember some keywords, and think that it made them more rational.
By which I mean that making the book more accessible is a good thing, and we definitely should do it. But rationality also requires some effort from the reader, that cannot be completely substituted by the book. We could reach a wider audience, but it would still be just a tiny minority of the population. Most people just wouldn’t care enough to really do the rationality stuff.
Which means that the book should start with some motivating examples. But even that has limited effect.
I believe there is a huge space for improvement, but we shouldn’t expect magic even with the best materials. There is only so much even the best book can do.
Some of the material is essentially millenia old, self-knowledge and self-awareness and introspection aren’t new inventions.
The problem is, using these millenia old methods people can generate a lot of nonsense. And they predictably do, most of the time. Otherwise, Freud would have already invented rationality, founded CFAR, became a beisutsukai master, built a Friendly AI, and started the Singularity. (Unless Aristotle or Socrates would already do it first.) Instead, he just discovered that everything you dream about is secretly a penis.
The difficult part is to avoid self-deception. These millenia old materials seem quite bad at it. Maybe they were best of what was available at their time. But that’s not enough. Archimedes could have been the smartest physicist of his time, but he still didn’t invent relativity. Being “best” is not enough; you have to do things correctly.
By which I mean that making the book more accessible is a good thing, and we definitely should do it. But rationality also requires some effort from the reader, that cannot be completely substituted by the book. We could reach a wider audience, but it would still be just a tiny minority of the population. Most people just wouldn’t care enough to really do the rationality stuff.
Okay, this is true. But LessWrong is currently a set of articles. So the medium is essentially unchanged, and any of these criticisms apply to the current form. And how many people do you think the article on akrasia has actually cured of akrasia?
The problem is, using these millenia old methods people can generate a lot of nonsense. And they predictably do, most of the time.
First of all, I’m mainly dealing with the subset of material here that deals with self-knowledge. Even if you disagree with “millenia old”, do you disagree with “any decent therapist would try to provide many/most of these tools to his/her patients”?
On the more scientific side, the idea of optimal scientific inquiry has been refined over the years, but the core of observation, experimentation and modeling is hardly new either.
Otherwise, Freud would have already invented rationality, founded CFAR, became a beisutsukai master, built a Friendly AI, and started the Singularity. (Unless Aristotle or Socrates would already do it first.) Instead, he just discovered that everything you dream about is secretly a penis.
I do not see what you mean here. Nobody at LW has invented rationality, become a beisutsukai master, built a Friendly AI or Started the singularity. Freud correctly realized the importance the subconscious has in shaping our behavior, and the fact that it is shaped by past experiences in ways not always clear to us. He then failed to separate this knowledge from some personal obsessions. We wouldn’t expect any methods of rationality to turn Freud into a superhero, we’d expect it to help people reading him separate the wheat from the chaff.
And also an e-book (which is probably not finished yet, last mention here), that is still just a set of articles, but they are selected, reordered, and the comments are removed—which is helpful, at least for readers like me, because when I read the web, I cannot resist reading the comments (which together can be 10 times as long as the article) and clicking hyperlinks, but when I read the book, I obediently follow the page flow.
A good writer could then take this book as a starting point, and rewrite it, with exercises. But for this we need a volunteer, because Eliezer is not going to do it. And the volunteer needs to have some skills.
And how many people do you think the article on akrasia has actually cured of akrasia?
Akrasia survey data analysis. Some methods seem to work for some people, but no method is universally useful. The highest success was “exercise to increase energy” and even that helped only 25% of people; and the critical weakness seems to be that most people think it is a good idea, but don’t do it. To overcome this, we would need some off-line solutions, like exercising together. (Or maybe a “LessWrong Virtual Exercise Hall”.)
do you disagree with “any decent therapist would try to provide many/most of these tools to his/her patients”?
Yes, I do. Therapists don’t see teaching rationality as their job (although it correlates), wouldn’t agree with some parts of our definitions of rationality (many of them are religious, or enjoy some kind of mysticism), and would consider some parts too technical and irrelevant for mental health (Bayes Rule, Solomonoff Prior, neural networks...).
But when you remove the technical details, what is left is pretty much “do things that seem reasonable”. Which still would be a huge improvement for many people.
On the more scientific side, the idea of optimal scientific inquiry has been refined over the years, but the core of observation, experimentation and modeling is hardly new either.
That’s the theory. Now look at the practice of… say, medicine. How much of it really is evidence-based, and how much of that is double-blind with control group and large enough sample and meta-analysis et cetera? When you start looking at it closely, actually very little. (If you want a horror story, read about Ignaz Semmelweis, who discovered how to save lifes of thousands of people and provided hard evidence… and how the medical community rewarded him.)
Okay, this is true. But LessWrong is currently a set of articles. So the medium is essentially unchanged, and any of these criticisms apply to the current form.
LessWrong activity seems to shift more into meatspace as time goes on.
We have the study hall for people with akrasia that provides different help then just reading an article about akrasia.
CFAR partly did grow out of LW and they hold workshops.
More simple language, many examples, many exercises.
And then the biggest problem would be that most people would just skip the exercises, remember some keywords, and think that it made them more rational.
By which I mean that making the book more accessible is a good thing, and we definitely should do it. But rationality also requires some effort from the reader, that cannot be completely substituted by the book. We could reach a wider audience, but it would still be just a tiny minority of the population. Most people just wouldn’t care enough to really do the rationality stuff.
Which means that the book should start with some motivating examples. But even that has limited effect.
I believe there is a huge space for improvement, but we shouldn’t expect magic even with the best materials. There is only so much even the best book can do.
The problem is, using these millenia old methods people can generate a lot of nonsense. And they predictably do, most of the time. Otherwise, Freud would have already invented rationality, founded CFAR, became a beisutsukai master, built a Friendly AI, and started the Singularity. (Unless Aristotle or Socrates would already do it first.) Instead, he just discovered that everything you dream about is secretly a penis.
The difficult part is to avoid self-deception. These millenia old materials seem quite bad at it. Maybe they were best of what was available at their time. But that’s not enough. Archimedes could have been the smartest physicist of his time, but he still didn’t invent relativity. Being “best” is not enough; you have to do things correctly.
Okay, this is true. But LessWrong is currently a set of articles. So the medium is essentially unchanged, and any of these criticisms apply to the current form. And how many people do you think the article on akrasia has actually cured of akrasia?
First of all, I’m mainly dealing with the subset of material here that deals with self-knowledge. Even if you disagree with “millenia old”, do you disagree with “any decent therapist would try to provide many/most of these tools to his/her patients”?
On the more scientific side, the idea of optimal scientific inquiry has been refined over the years, but the core of observation, experimentation and modeling is hardly new either.
I do not see what you mean here. Nobody at LW has invented rationality, become a beisutsukai master, built a Friendly AI or Started the singularity. Freud correctly realized the importance the subconscious has in shaping our behavior, and the fact that it is shaped by past experiences in ways not always clear to us. He then failed to separate this knowledge from some personal obsessions. We wouldn’t expect any methods of rationality to turn Freud into a superhero, we’d expect it to help people reading him separate the wheat from the chaff.
And also an e-book (which is probably not finished yet, last mention here), that is still just a set of articles, but they are selected, reordered, and the comments are removed—which is helpful, at least for readers like me, because when I read the web, I cannot resist reading the comments (which together can be 10 times as long as the article) and clicking hyperlinks, but when I read the book, I obediently follow the page flow.
A good writer could then take this book as a starting point, and rewrite it, with exercises. But for this we need a volunteer, because Eliezer is not going to do it. And the volunteer needs to have some skills.
Akrasia survey data analysis. Some methods seem to work for some people, but no method is universally useful. The highest success was “exercise to increase energy” and even that helped only 25% of people; and the critical weakness seems to be that most people think it is a good idea, but don’t do it. To overcome this, we would need some off-line solutions, like exercising together. (Or maybe a “LessWrong Virtual Exercise Hall”.)
Yes, I do. Therapists don’t see teaching rationality as their job (although it correlates), wouldn’t agree with some parts of our definitions of rationality (many of them are religious, or enjoy some kind of mysticism), and would consider some parts too technical and irrelevant for mental health (Bayes Rule, Solomonoff Prior, neural networks...).
But when you remove the technical details, what is left is pretty much “do things that seem reasonable”. Which still would be a huge improvement for many people.
That’s the theory. Now look at the practice of… say, medicine. How much of it really is evidence-based, and how much of that is double-blind with control group and large enough sample and meta-analysis et cetera? When you start looking at it closely, actually very little. (If you want a horror story, read about Ignaz Semmelweis, who discovered how to save lifes of thousands of people and provided hard evidence… and how the medical community rewarded him.)
LessWrong activity seems to shift more into meatspace as time goes on.
We have the study hall for people with akrasia that provides different help then just reading an article about akrasia.
CFAR partly did grow out of LW and they hold workshops.