I didn’t look deeply in to the material, but good branding gives people a good feeling about a thing, and I think rationality could use some better branding. In my experience a lot of people bounce off a lot of the material cause they have negative associations with it or it’s not packaged in a way that appeals. I think even if (I didn’t check) the material is too superficial to be useful as content, it’s still useful to increase people’s affinity / positive association with rationality.
That’s a complicated topic—how useful are positive associations of “rationality” (the word) if they do not come with the right content?
On one hand, it seems like not really; we are promoting the word, but not the thing that the word represents. We might even be teaching people to associate the word with a wrong thing.
On the other hand, it’s not like negative associations would be better, so...
I don’t know.
(Someone should review that Amazon book, but I am not going to buy it.)
I didn’t look deeply in to the material, but good branding gives people a good feeling about a thing, and I think rationality could use some better branding. In my experience a lot of people bounce off a lot of the material cause they have negative associations with it or it’s not packaged in a way that appeals. I think even if (I didn’t check) the material is too superficial to be useful as content, it’s still useful to increase people’s affinity / positive association with rationality.
That’s a complicated topic—how useful are positive associations of “rationality” (the word) if they do not come with the right content?
On one hand, it seems like not really; we are promoting the word, but not the thing that the word represents. We might even be teaching people to associate the word with a wrong thing.
On the other hand, it’s not like negative associations would be better, so...
I don’t know.
(Someone should review that Amazon book, but I am not going to buy it.)