Re polyamory, it’s a good topic to bring up when people are already involved and understand the basics. It if comes up first thing, they label you as swingers or some other “weirdos” and lose interest.
Re tone. Here is your mission statement:
We empower individuals and organizations to refine and reach their goals by transforming recent research on rational thinking and emotional intelligence into practical and easy-to-use strategies and tools conveyed in a friendly and engaging manner.
Or, in other words, “we dumb things down so your simple minds can understand”. For comparison, CFAR’s vision page , while it also could use some improvement, says stuff like
Even the smartest human brains didn’t evolve to handle the kinds of complex decisions we face daily in the modern world.
and
We’re taking the results of cognitive science research, and turning them into techniques that people can practice and use in their own lives. That means going beyond understanding these errors, and actually training ourselves to overcome them. It also means knowing when to trust our instincts, and learning new thinking habits for situations where they’re less reliable.
The difference may seem subtle, but they include themselves in the group that is learning, not just teaching.
To be clear, I certainly think we are also learning—we convey these strategies and tools to ourselves in a friendly and engaging manner and strive to optimize ourselves just as much as we convey them to external audiences. However, I see where there can be a misunderstanding of the mission statement, and we will take that into consideration at our next revision meeting. Appreciate you pointing out the negative interpretation of “dumbing down” that can one can read into that statement. What would be any suggestions on improving the mission statement, from you or anyone else?
Regarding CFAR and its vision statement: I think it’s best to compare vision statement to vision statement. Our vision statement is “We envision a world where individuals, organizations, and governments rely on research-based strategies, constantly improving their ability to evaluate reality clearly and make effective decisions, enabling all of us to live optimally happy, healthy, fulfilling and flourishing lives.” Do you think this can be misread in a problematic manner? Or even better, do you or anyone else have any suggestions on improving the vision statement?
Thanks for engaging so thoroughly, really appreciate the advice :-)
What would be any suggestions on improving the mission statement, from you or anyone else?
The issue is not so much with the wording of the mission statement but with the underlying sentiment that get’s expressed.
CFAR does not try to dumb down things so that everybody can understand it. To the extend that you want to do that, you have to understand what that goal entails. CFAR rationality is a lot about self-skepticism. They are not confident that they know the truth and the problem is simply about enlightening the masses with that truth.
To me I read in neither of those statements that de-stigmatizing polyamory is part of your mission.
To be clear, our mission is to have more people think rationally about relationships, and we perceive de-stigmatizing polyamory as one subcomponent of that mission.
But your comments are duly noted, and we will be working on another post soon. Thanks for helping incrementally update my beliefs
Re polyamory, it’s a good topic to bring up when people are already involved and understand the basics. It if comes up first thing, they label you as swingers or some other “weirdos” and lose interest.
Re tone. Here is your mission statement:
Or, in other words, “we dumb things down so your simple minds can understand”. For comparison, CFAR’s vision page , while it also could use some improvement, says stuff like
and
The difference may seem subtle, but they include themselves in the group that is learning, not just teaching.
To be clear, I certainly think we are also learning—we convey these strategies and tools to ourselves in a friendly and engaging manner and strive to optimize ourselves just as much as we convey them to external audiences. However, I see where there can be a misunderstanding of the mission statement, and we will take that into consideration at our next revision meeting. Appreciate you pointing out the negative interpretation of “dumbing down” that can one can read into that statement. What would be any suggestions on improving the mission statement, from you or anyone else?
Regarding CFAR and its vision statement: I think it’s best to compare vision statement to vision statement. Our vision statement is “We envision a world where individuals, organizations, and governments rely on research-based strategies, constantly improving their ability to evaluate reality clearly and make effective decisions, enabling all of us to live optimally happy, healthy, fulfilling and flourishing lives.” Do you think this can be misread in a problematic manner? Or even better, do you or anyone else have any suggestions on improving the vision statement?
Thanks for engaging so thoroughly, really appreciate the advice :-)
The issue is not so much with the wording of the mission statement but with the underlying sentiment that get’s expressed.
CFAR does not try to dumb down things so that everybody can understand it. To the extend that you want to do that, you have to understand what that goal entails. CFAR rationality is a lot about self-skepticism. They are not confident that they know the truth and the problem is simply about enlightening the masses with that truth.
To me I read in neither of those statements that de-stigmatizing polyamory is part of your mission.
To be clear, our mission is to have more people think rationally about relationships, and we perceive de-stigmatizing polyamory as one subcomponent of that mission.
But your comments are duly noted, and we will be working on another post soon. Thanks for helping incrementally update my beliefs