I think in the end, it’s the personal “tutor” aspect that I appreciate so much about something like this. There’s something to the notion of a flesh and blood guide that really appeals to me.
Any plan like this should have a good deal of time and thought spent on sorting among tutors. At a camp, each individual chooses what to ask to whom. The value of a random tutor you aren’t comfortable and mentally in tune with would be low.
I think the best value would be had from getting a skype rationality chavruta and only sometimes talking to a tutor. This would give you more practice using techniques, rather than receiving instruction.
One idea would be for you to find someone who enjoys posting discussion questions and finds it easy, natural, unstressful, etc.
I just recently discovered I have a very different (apparently unique) interpretation of a post by Eliezer than many other people. I would not have noticed this without interacting actively with others. If each post is likely to be interpreted correctly 90% of the time, assuming independence (I know) two people will between them have the correct interpretation 99% of the time. I still don’t know what to think about Einstein’s Arrogance—if I am right and they are wrong, that would be an example of why two people are not enough to reliably discover the interpretation of ambiguous content. I think that will turn out to be the case.
In addition or alternatively, a group could have individuals who focus on a few things in depth, and lean on each other’s expertise.
Any plan like this should have a good deal of time and thought spent on sorting among tutors...I think the best value would be had from getting a skype rationality chavruta and only sometimes talking to a tutor. This would give you more practice using techniques, rather than receiving instruction.
Excellent points. I’ll think more about that, and hadn’t previously considered this variable much. Now that you point it out, I realize that comfort with a tutor is, indeed, a very big factor.
If each post is likely to be interpreted correctly 90% of the time, assuming independence (I know) two people will between them have the correct interpretation 99% of the time.
Could you explain this further? I would have thought that two people would have a 90% * 90% = 81% chance of both having the correct interpretation.
Yes, this is my understanding as well. I specifically was focused on this statemetn:
...two people will between them have the correct interpretation 99% of the time.
Which is why I thought that should have been one of any two people will have the correct interpretation 99% of the time. It read as though two people would both have the correct interpretation 99% of the time. Perhaps you meant, “The correct interpretation will be brought into a group of two 99% of the time. From there, they need to figure out who has it.”
Any plan like this should have a good deal of time and thought spent on sorting among tutors. At a camp, each individual chooses what to ask to whom. The value of a random tutor you aren’t comfortable and mentally in tune with would be low.
I think the best value would be had from getting a skype rationality chavruta and only sometimes talking to a tutor. This would give you more practice using techniques, rather than receiving instruction.
One idea would be for you to find someone who enjoys posting discussion questions and finds it easy, natural, unstressful, etc.
I just recently discovered I have a very different (apparently unique) interpretation of a post by Eliezer than many other people. I would not have noticed this without interacting actively with others. If each post is likely to be interpreted correctly 90% of the time, assuming independence (I know) two people will between them have the correct interpretation 99% of the time. I still don’t know what to think about Einstein’s Arrogance—if I am right and they are wrong, that would be an example of why two people are not enough to reliably discover the interpretation of ambiguous content. I think that will turn out to be the case.
In addition or alternatively, a group could have individuals who focus on a few things in depth, and lean on each other’s expertise.
Excellent points. I’ll think more about that, and hadn’t previously considered this variable much. Now that you point it out, I realize that comfort with a tutor is, indeed, a very big factor.
Could you explain this further? I would have thought that two people would have a 90% * 90% = 81% chance of both having the correct interpretation.
81% chance of both having it, 99% chance of one or more having it since 10% * 10% = 1% chance of both not having the correct interpretation.
So that raises a flag 18% of the time and one can ask third parties,
Yes, this is my understanding as well. I specifically was focused on this statemetn:
Which is why I thought that should have been one of any two people will have the correct interpretation 99% of the time. It read as though two people would both have the correct interpretation 99% of the time. Perhaps you meant, “The correct interpretation will be brought into a group of two 99% of the time. From there, they need to figure out who has it.”
“81% chance of both having it, 99% chance of one or more having it since 10% * 10% = 1% chance of both not having the correct interpretation.
Assuming that the 10% is truly random (which I doubt). But this is just a nitpick.
Is this nitpick with the contents of my comment or with assuming randomness?
with the randomness.
Gotcha, and I agree, especially around here. Though the quality of the writing and complexity of the topic probably correlates highly.