Great post. Right now, I think that you do need an advanced vocabulary to understand what’s on LessWrong. In general, most people that have been involved with LW-style explicit rationality as it exists today are unusually intelligent and this are likely to use such terms.
However, I think that that is a flaw with our own methods rather than a flaw with rationality-in-general. A more accessible form of rationality would be very useful.
Thank you—I think the article was actually rather weak, on review, but thank you!
I’m going to read the article now.
Your initial point was what prompted my thoughts on the issue—essentially, as I read through LW, learn new words, new ways of thinking, new approaches, will I become more rational? I suppose that’s not solely vocabulary—it includes the ideas that spawned that vocabulary—but looking up definitions has something I’ve definitely been spending a lot of time doing!
Great post. Right now, I think that you do need an advanced vocabulary to understand what’s on LessWrong. In general, most people that have been involved with LW-style explicit rationality as it exists today are unusually intelligent and this are likely to use such terms.
However, I think that that is a flaw with our own methods rather than a flaw with rationality-in-general. A more accessible form of rationality would be very useful.
One post that you might want to read is lukeprog’s “Explicit and tacit rationality.”
Thank you—I think the article was actually rather weak, on review, but thank you!
I’m going to read the article now.
Your initial point was what prompted my thoughts on the issue—essentially, as I read through LW, learn new words, new ways of thinking, new approaches, will I become more rational? I suppose that’s not solely vocabulary—it includes the ideas that spawned that vocabulary—but looking up definitions has something I’ve definitely been spending a lot of time doing!