While there are many people who are annoyed by Christian Evangelicals, I feel that it is difficult to argue against their effectiveness. They exist because they are willing to talk to people again and again about their beliefs until those people convert.
Do you have any reason to believe that Christian Evangelicals are ineffective at persuading people? Keep in mind that a 5% conversion rate is doing a pretty damn good job when it comes to changing people’s minds.
The following advice is anecdotal and is a very clear example of “other optimizing”. So don’t take it with a grain of salt, take it with at least a table spoon.
I’ve found that engaging people about their rationality habits is frequently something that needs to be done in a manner which is significantly more confrontational than what is considered polite conversation. Being told that how you think is flawed at a fundamental level is very difficult to deal with, and people will be inclined to not deal with it. So you need to talk to people about the real world consequences of their biases and very specifically describe how acting in a less biased manner will improve their life and the lives of those around them.
Anecdotally I’ve found this to be true in convincing people to donate money to the AMF. My friends will be happy to agree that they should do so, but unless prodded repeatedly and pointedly they will not actually take the next step of donating. I accept that my friends are not a good sample to generalize from (my social circle tends to include those who are already slightly more rational than the average bear to begin with). So if you want to convince someone to be more rational, bug them about it. Once a week for two months. Specificity is key here, talk about real life examples where their biases are causing problems. The more concrete the better since it allows them to have a clear picture of what improvement will look like.
The issue of “watering down” one’s GPA by taking more classes is already being significantly addressed by colleges and high schools.
Most top colleges examine unweighted GPAs rather than weighted ones. Unweighted GPAs cannot be watered down by non honors classes, and have better predictive validity for college grades than weighted GPAs. One might be inclined to think that this provides incentives for taking easy classes, but the top schools are simply not going to take you seriously if you adopt this strategy (speaking from personal experience at a top liberal arts college and having seen the data on the average number of AP classes taken).
On the high school end, many high schools (including my own former school) have switched away from a weighted average system for class rank. Instead, they use a system where one’s GPA for class rank purposes = 36 (unweighted GPA) + .5 (number of honors classes taken) + 1*(number of AP classes taken). The additive system prevents the possibility of having one’s GPA watered down. Some high schools go further by adding additional points for taking extra classes beyond the number required for graduation, further encouraging the taking of additional classes regardless of their honor/AP status.
After doing a little research on the Pomodoro technique, I couldn’t really find any studies on their effectiveness. The anecdotal evidence is enticing (and preliminary trials of my own have been positive), but has anyone seen good research done on it or similar productivity methods?
I agree with the arguments against diversification (mainly due to its effect on lowering the incentive for becoming more efficient), but here’s a concrete instance of how diversification could make cheating nonviable.
Example: Cheating to fake the signals costs 5,000$ (in other words, 5,000$ to make it look like you’re the best charity). There are 10,000$ of efficient altruism funds that will be directed to the most efficient charity. By faking signals, you net 5,000$.
Now if diversification is used, let’s say at most 1⁄4 of the efficient altruism funds will be directed to a given charity (maybe evenly splitting the funds among the top 4 charities). Faking the signals now nets −2,500$. Thus, diversification would lower the incentive to cheat by reducing the expected payoff.
Apologies, I should have been clearer in using donations to the AMF as an analogy to persuading people to be more rational and not a direct way to persuade people to be more rational. I don’t claim that these people are more rational simply because they donate to the AMF.
If we are really trying to persuade people, however, guilt tripping should be considered as an option. Logical arguments will only change the behavior of a very small segment of society while even self-professed rationalists can be persuaded with good emotional appeals.