Marketing Rationality

One idea is to try to teach your audience about overconfidence first, e.g. the way this game does with the calibration questions up front. See also.

Does this cause any updating in decreasing the likelihood of nightmare scenarios like the one you described?

Effectively no. I understand that you're aware of these risks and are able to list mitigating arguments, but the weight of those arguments does not resolve my worries. The things you've just said aren't different in gestalt from what I've read from you.

To be potentially more helpful, here's a few ways the arguments you just made fall flat for me:

I only incidentally mention rationality, such as when I speak of Rationality Dojo as a noun. I also generally do not talk of cognitive biases, and use other euphemistic language, such as referring to thinking errors, as in this article for Salon. So this gets at the point of watering down rationality.

Connectivity to the rationalist movement or "rationality" keyword isn't necessary to immunize people against the ideas. You're right that if you literally never use the word "bias" then it's unlikely my nightmare imaginary conversational partner will have a strong triggered response against the word "bias", but if they respond the same way to the phrase "thinking errors" or realize at some point that's the concept I'm talking about, it's the same pitfall. And in terms of catalyzing opposition, there is enough connectivity for motivated antagonists to make such connections and use every deviation from perfection as ammunition against even fully correct forms of good ideas.

For example, in this article, I specifically discuss research studies as a key way of validating truth claims. Recall that we are all suffering from a position of curse of knowledge on this point. How can we expect to teach people who do not know what science-based means without teaching it to them in the first place? Do you remember when you were at a stage when you did not know the value of scientific studies, and then came to learn about them as a useful way of validating evidence? This is what I'm doing in that article above. Hope this helps address some of the concerns about arguing from authority.

I can't find any discussion in the linked article about why research is a key way of validating truth claims; did you link the correct article? I also don't know if I understand what you're trying to say; to reflect back, are you saying something like "People first need to be convinced that scientific studies are of value, before we can teach them why scientific studies are of value." ? I ... don't know about that, but I won't critique that position here since I may not be understanding.

(...) Hope this helps address the concerns about the writing style and the immunization of people to good ideas, since the readers of this content are specifically looking for this kind of writing style.

You seem to be saying that since the writing is of the form needed to get on Lifehack, and since in fact people are reading it on Lifehack, that they will then not suffer from any memetic immunization via the ideas. First, not all immunization is via negative reactions; many people think science is great, but have no idea how to do science. Such people can be in a sense immunized from learning to understand the process; their curiosity is already sated, and their decisions made. Second, as someone mentioned somewhere else on this comment stream, it's not obvious that the Lifehack readers who end up looking at your article will end up liking or agreeing with your article.

You're clearly getting some engagement, which is suggestive of positive responses, but what if the distribution of response is bimodal, with some readers liking it a little bit and some readers absolutely loathing it to the point of sharing their disgust with friends? Google searches reveal negative reactions to your materials as well. The net impact is not obviously positive.

Agreed with presenting them to intro-level means, so that there is less of an inference gap.

Good idea on subtly introducing readers to more and better sites for further and better reading, updating on this to do so more often in my articles. Thanks!

An important way I think about my work in the rationality sphere is cognitive altruism.

In a way, it's not different than effective altruism. When promoting effective giving, I encourage people to think rationally about their giving. I pose to them the question of how (and whether) they currently think about their goals in giving, the impact of their giving, and the quality of the charities to which they give, encouraging them to use research-based evaluations from GiveWell, TLYCS, etc. The result is that they give to effective charities.

Similarly, I encourage people to think rationally about their life and goals in my promotion of rationality. The results is that they make better decisions about their lives and are more capable of meeting their goals, including being more long-term oriented and thus fighting the Moloch problem. For example, here is what one person got out of my book on finding meaning and purpose by orienting toward one's long-term goals. He is now dedicated to focusing his life on helping other people have a good life, in effect orienting toward altruism.

In both cases, I take the rational approach of using methods from content marketing that have been shown to work effectively in meeting the goals of spreading complex information to broad audiences. It's not different in principle.

I'm curious whether this information helps you update one way or another in your assessment of Intentional Insights.

Yeah, we're not optimizing for warm-fuzzies from Less Wrongers, but for a broad impact. Thanks for the sympathetic words, my friend.

This road of effective cognitive altruism is a hard one to travel, neither being really appreciated, at least at first, by the ones who we are trying to reach, nor by the ones among our peers whose ideas we are bringing to the masses.

Well, if my liver gets consumed daily by vultures, this is the road I've chosen. Glad to have you by my side, and hope this doesn't rebound on you much.

If he thinks that writing at a lower-level than most rationality content is currently written will help make the world a better place, he'll actually go and do it, even if it feels weird or unpleasant to him.

I'm not sure whether that's a good idea. Writing that feels weird to the author is also going to transmit that vibe to the audience. We don't want rationality to be associated with feeling weird and unpleasant.

any appearance of a status-hungry manipulator

I can't speak for other people, of course, but he never looked much like a manipulator. He looks like a guy who has no clue. He doesn't understand marketing (or propaganda), the fine-tuned practice of manipulating people's minds for fun and profit. He decided he needs to go downmarket to save the souls drowning in ignorance, but all he succeeded in doing -- and it's actually quite impressive, I don't think I'm capable of it -- is learning to write texts which cause visceral disgust.

Notice the terms in which people speak of his attempts. It's not "has a lot of rough edges", it's slime and spiders in human skin and "painful" and all that. Gleb's writing does reach System I, but the effect has the wrong sign.

If he'd done the status-quo thing and stuck to approved-activities it would've been emotionally easier.

Yes. That's what the status quo is, and how it works. More, there's are multiple levels to the reasons for its existence, and the implicit suggestion that sticking to the status quo would be a tragedy neglect those reasons in favor of romantic notions of fixing the world.

Let's start with a false statement from one of Gleb's articles:

Intuitively, we feel our mind to be a cohesive whole, and perceive ourselves as intentional and rational thinkers. Yet cognitive science research shows that in reality, the intentional part of our mind is like a little rider on top of a huge elephant of emotions and intuitions. This is why researchers frequently divide our mental processes into two different systems of dealing with information, the intentional system and the autopilot system.

What's false? Researchers don't use the terms "intentional system" and "autopilot system".

Why is that the problem? Aren't the terms near enough to system I and system II? A person who's interested might want to read additional literature on the subject. The fact that the terms Gleb invented don't match with the existing literature means that it's harder for a person to go from reading Gleb articles to reading higher level material.

If the person digs deeper they will sooner or later run into trouble. The might have a conversation with a genuine neuroscientist and talk about the "intentional system" and "autopilot system" and find that the neuroscientist hasn't heard of making the distinction in those terms. It might take a while till they understand that deception happened but it might hinder them from propressing.

I think talking about system I and system II in the way Gleb does raises the risk of readers coming a way with believing that reflective thinking is superior to intuitive thinking. It suggests that it's about using system II for important issues instead of focusing on aligning system I and system II with each other the way CFAR proposes. The stereotype of people who categorically prefer system II to system I is straw-vulcan's. Level 2 of rationality is not "being a straw-vulcan".

In the article on his website Gleb says:

The intentional system reflects our rational thinking, and centers around the prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain that evolved more recently.

That sounds to me like neurobabble. Kahnmann doesn't say that system II is about a specific part of the brain. Even if it would be completely true, having that knowledge doesn't help a person to be more rational. If you want to make a message as simple as possible you could drop that piece of information without any problem.

Why doesn't he drop it and make the article simpler? Because it helps with pushing an ideology. What other people in this thread called rationality as religion. The rationality that fills someone sense of belong to a group.

I don't see that people rationality get's raised in the process of that. That leads to the question of "what are the basics of rationality?"

I think the facebook group provides sometimes a good venue to understand what new people get wrong. Yesterday one person accused another of being a fake account. I asked the accuser for his credence but he replied that he can't give a probability for something like that. The accuser didn't thought in terms of Cromwell's rule. Making that step from thinking "you are a fake account" to having a mental category of "80% certainty: you are a fake account" is progress. No neuroscience is needed to make that progress.

Rationality for beginners could attempt to teach Cromwell's rule while keeping it as simple as possible. I'm even okay if the term Cromwell's rule doesn't appear. The article can have pretty pictures, but it shouldn't make any false claims.

I admit that "What are the basics of rationality?" isn't an easy question. This community often complicates things. Scott recently wrote what developmental milestones are you missing. That article list 4 milestones with one of them being Cromwell's rule (Scott doesn't name it).

In my current view of rationality other basics might be TAPs, noticing, tiny habits, "how not to be a straw-vulcan" and "have conversation with the goal of learning something new yourself, instead of having the goal of just effecting the other person".

A good way to searching for basics might also be to notice events where you yourself go: "Why doesn't this other person get how the world works, X is obvious to people at LW, why to I have to suffer from living in a world where people don't get X?". I don't think the answer to that question will be that people think that the prefrontal cortex is about system II thinking.

Maybe we could just go burn some elementary-school textbooks, because they often contain too simplified information. Sometimes with silly pictures!

Did you ever read about Feynman's experience reading science textbooks for elementary school? (It's available online here.)

There are good and bad ways to simplify.

This is why I wrote about "the low-hanging fruit that most rationalists wouldn't even touch for... let's admit it... status reasons".

Sure, there are people I'd rather not join the LessWrong community for status reasons. But I don't think the resistance here is about status instead of methodology. Yes, it would be nice to have organizations devoted to helping people get from level 1 to level 2, but if you were closing your eyes and designing such an organization, would it look like this?

(Both agreeing with and refining your position, and directed less to you than the audience):

Personally, I'm at level 21, and I'm trying to raise the rest of you to my level.

Now, before you take that as a serious statement, ask yourself how you feel about that proposition, and how inclined you would be to take anything I said seriously if I actually believed that. Think about to what extent I behave like I -do- believe that, and how that changes the way what I say is perceived.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/m70/visions_and_mirages_the_sunk_cost_dilemma/ <- This post, and pretty much all of my comments, had reasonably high upvotes before I revealed what I was up to. Now, I'm not going to say it didn't deserve to get downvoted - I learned a lot from that post that I should have known going into it - but I'd like to point out the fundamental similarities, but scaled up a level, between what I do there, and typical rationalist "education". "Here's a thing. It was a trick! Look at how easily I tricked you! You should now listen to what I say about how to avoid getting tricked in the future." Worse, cognitive dissonance will make it harder to fix that weakness in the future. As I said, I learned a -lot- in that post; I tried to shove at least four levels of plots and education into it, and instead, turned people off with the first or second one. I hope I taught people something, but in retrospect, and far removed from it, I think it was probably a complete and total failure which mostly served to alienate people from the lessons I was attempted to impart.

The first step to making stupid people slightly less stupid is to make them realize the way in which they're stupid in the first place, so that they become willing to fix it. But you can't do that, because, obviously, people really dislike being told they're stupid. Because there are some issues inherent in approaching other people with the assumption that they're less than you, and that they should accept your help in raising them up. You're asserting a higher status than them. They're going to resent that, and cognitive dissonance is going to make them decide that the thing you're better at, either you aren't, or that it isn't that important. So if you think that you can make "stupid people slightly less stupid", you're completely incompetent at the task.

But... show them that -you- are stupid, and show them you becoming less stupid, and cognitive dissonance will tell them that they were smarter than you, and that they already knew what you were trying to teach them. That's a huge part of what made the Sequences so successful - riddled throughout it were admissions of Eliezer's own weakness. "This is a mistake I made. This is what I realized. This is how I started to get past that mistake." What made them failures, however, is the way they made those who read them feel Enlightened, like they had just Leveled Up twenty times and were now far above ordinary plebeians. The critical failure of the Sequences is that they didn't teach humility; the lesson you -should- come away from them with is the idea that, however much Less Wrong you've become, you're still deeply, deeply wrong. And that's okay.

Which provokes a dilemma. Everybody who wants to teach rationality to others, because it leveled them up twenty times and look at those stupid people falling prey to the non-central fallacy on a constant basis, are completely unsuitable to do so.

So did I succeed? Or did I fail? And why?

no that does not answer to the issues I raised.

I am now going to take apart this article:

www.intentionalinsights.org/7-surprising-science-based-hacks-to-build-your-willpower

7 Surprising Science-Based Hacks To Build Your Willpower

Tempted by that second doughnut? Struggling to resist checking your phone? Shopping impulsively on Amazon? Slacking off by reading BuzzFeed instead of doing work? What you need is more willpower! Recent research shows that strengthening willpower is the real secret to the kind of self-control that can help you resist temptations and achieve your goals. The great news is that scientists say strengthening your willpower is not as hard as you might think. Here are 7 research-based hacks to strengthen your willpower!

1. Smile :-)

Smiling and other mood-lifting activities help improve willpower. In a recent study, scientists first drained the willpower of participants through having them resist temptation. Then, for one group, they took steps to lift people’s moods, such as giving them unexpected gifts or showing them a funny video. For another group, they just let them rest. Compared to people who just rested for a brief period, those whose moods were improved did significantly better in resisting temptation later! So next time you need to resist temptation, improve your mood! Smile or laugh, watch a funny video or two.

low willpower resisting BuzzFeed and doughnuts? You should improve your mood - try some Buzzfeed or doughnuts.

1. Clench Your Fist

Clench your fists or partake in another type of activity where you exercise self-control. Studies say that exercising self-control in any physical domain causes you to become more disciplined in other facets of life. So do whatever works for you to exercise self-control when you are trying to fight temptations: clench your fist, squeeze your eyes shut, or you can even hold in your pee, just like UK Prime Minister David Cameron.

1. Meditate

Photo Credit: Gleb Tsipursky meditating in the park

Meditation is great for a lot of things – reducing stress, increasing focus, managing emotions. Now research suggests it even helps us build willpower! With all these benefits, can you afford not to meditate? An easy way to get started is to spend 10 minutes a day sitting in a calm position and focusing on your breath.

1. Reminders

Our immediate desires to give in to temptations make it really challenging to resist them. Our emotional desires seem like a huge elephant and our rational self is like a small elephant rider by comparison. However, one way to steer the elephant is to set in physical reminders in advance to remind ourselves of what our rational self wanted to do. So put a note on your fridge that says “only one doughnut” or set an alarm clock to buzz when you want to stop playing video games.

1. Eat

Did you know that your willpower is powered by food? No wonder’s it’s so hard to diet! When we don’t eat, our willpower goes down the drain. The best cure is a meal rich in protein, which enables the most optimal willpower.

1. Self-Forgiveness

How is self-forgiveness connected to willpower? Well, what the science shows is that feelings of regret deplete your willpower. This is why those who eat a little too much ice cream and feel regret are then much more likely to just let themselves go and eat the whole pint or even gallon! Instead, when you give in to temptation, be compassionate toward yourself and forgive yourself. That way, you’ll have more willpower going forward!

1. Commitment

The most important thing to strengthen your willpower is commitment to doing so! Only by committing to improving your willpower every day will you be able to take the steps described above. To do so, evaluate your situation and why you want to strengthen your willpower, make a clear decision to work on improving this area, and set a long-term goal for your willpower improvement to have the kind of intentional life that you want.

Then break down this goal into specific and concrete steps that you will take based on the strategies described above. Research shows this is the best path for you to build your willpower!

So what are the specific and concrete steps that you will take to build your own willpower? Share your planned steps and the strategies that you will use in the comments section below!

To avoid missing out on content that helps you reach your goals, subscribe to the Intentional Insights monthly newsletter.

The generosity of readers like you made this article possible. If you benefited from reading it, please consider volunteering or/and making a tax-deductible contribution to Intentional Insights. Thank you for being awesome!

surprising clickbait title. That's fine.

science-Based No. Bad. Not helpful.

Tempted by that second doughnut? short term reward vs long term dieting goal with less salient rewards. You didn't explain that.

Struggling to resist checking your phone?

how about asking why? rather than attracting someone to ring the yes that's me bells in their head; instead attract them to the I should sort that out bells.

Shopping impulsively on Amazon?

What really? I know these are just your examples; but you should use solid ones. And don't name drop Amazon and BuzzFeed.

Slacking off by reading BuzzFeed instead of doing work? What you need is more willpower! Recent research shows

research from who? the magical scientists

that strengthening willpower is the real secret

real secret kill me now.

to the kind of self-control that can help you resist temptations and achieve your goals. The great news is that scientists say

scientists say are they the same ones that were doing research before? Or different ones.

strengthening your willpower is not as hard as you might think. Here are 7 research-based hacks to strengthen your willpower!

1. Smile :-)

not inherently bad a suggestion; but really has not a lot to do with willpower. If you are a human who never smiles; you shouldn't be looking at willpower things; you should be solving that problem first.

Smiling and other mood-lifting activities help improve willpower. In a recent study,

a recent study not linked to

scientists them again!

first drained the willpower of participants through having them resist temptation. Then, for one group, they took steps to lift people’s moods, such as giving them unexpected gifts or showing them a funny video. For another group, they just let them rest. Compared to people who just rested for a brief period, those whose moods were improved did significantly better in resisting temptation later!

in what way does this connect smiling and willpower?

So next time you need to resist temptation, improve your mood! Smile or laugh, watch a funny video or two.

no. This is reaching not-even-wrong territory.

1. Clench Your Fist

nothing wrong with this suggestion but it's a bit of a weak effect.

Clench your fists or partake in another type of activity where you exercise self-control. Studies say

studies say Which ones? Where?

that exercising self-control in any physical domain causes you to become more disciplined in other facets of life.

hey wait - the nebulous idea of willpower, the draw of the science based, the entire idea that there are super secret answers is entirely the opposite of what rationality wants to convey. Truth is - if there were any ideas that really worked; you would already know about them; and probably already be using them. The entire idea of maybe if I keep searching for ideas I can uncover a secret truth is wrong. It's an overstretch of exploration in the exploration-exploitation dilemma. The worst part is partial reinforcement helps to reinforce addictive behaviours (like endlessly browsing buzzfeed) more than anything else.

So do whatever works for you to exercise self-control when you are trying to fight temptations: clench your fist, squeeze your eyes shut, or you can even hold in your pee

just like UK Prime Minister David Cameron. What? Not a good thing to be referencing.

I'm gonna stop because this feels too much like a waste of time.

I realise it's easier to criticise than generate content; I plan to try to do that in contrast to this article if I get the time.

For how many times the article itself was shared, Lifehack has that prominently displayed on their website. Then, we use Google Analytics, which gives us information on how many people visited out website from Lifehack itself. We can't track them further than that. If you have ideas about how to track them further, especially using free software, I'd be interested in learning about that!

I thought his comments were not worth attention, following the general guidelines here.

Indeed, the people who read one of our articles, for example the Lifehack article, are not inherently stupid. They have that urge for self-improvement that all of us here on Less Wrong have. They just way less education and access to information, and also of course different tastes, preferences, and skills. Moreover, the inferential gap is huge, as you correctly note.

The question is what will people do: will they actually follow the links to get more deep engagement? Let's take the Lifehack article as an example to describe our broader model, which assumes that once people check out our content on other websites and venues, some will then visit the Intentional Insights website to engage with its content. So after the Lifehack article on 6 Science-Based Hacks for Growing Mentally Stronger appeared, it was shared over 2K times on social media, so it probably had views in the tens of thousands if not hundreds.

Then, over 1K people visited the Intentional Insights website directly from the Lifehack website. In other words, they were interested enough to not only skim the article, but also follow the links to Intentional Insights, which was listed in my bio and elsewhere. Of those, some will want to engage with our content further. As an example, we had a large wave of new people follow us on Facebook and other social media and subscribe to our newsletter in the week after the article came out. I can't say how many did so as a result of seeing the article or other factors, but there was a large bump. So there is evidence of people wanting to get more thoroughly engaged.

The articles are meant to provide a gateway, in other words. And there is evidence of people following the breadcrumbs. Eventually, after they receive enough education, we would introduce them to ClearerThinking, CFAR, and LW. We are careful to avoid Endless September scenarios by not explicitly promoting Less Wrong heavily. For more on our strategy, see my comment below.

Could Gleb's articles provide the same gateway for someone else

Not that I belong to his target demographic, but his articles would make me cringe and rapidly run in the other direction.

Is it worth introducing one reader by poisoning nine, however? First impressions do matter, and if the first impression rationalism gives people is that of a cult making pseudoscientific pop-self-help-ish promises about improving their lives, you're trading short-term gains for long-term difficulties overcoming that reputation (which, I'll note, the rationalist community already struggles with).

If I wanted to -attack- you, I'd have accused you of using credit card information from a donation or t-shirt purchase to make illicit purchases. I'd send off for your IRS expense reports to see where your budget goes, and spin that in a very unfriendly way (if any spin were necessary). I'd start spreading rumors that your polyamory posts from your early days were proof that you were sleeping with your students. And trust me, you've spread enough nonsense around Less Wrong to make each one of these accusations stick in a very uncomfortable way. I did the research, trying to decide if you were legitimate or not.

I'd -destroy- you. And your regular and completely uneducated attempts at the Dark Arts would make it -absurdly- easy.

But I'm not even talking about you here. This is me talking about marketing generally.

Just wanted to clarify that people who are reading Lifehack are very much used to the kind of material there - it's cognitively easy for them and they don't perceive it as a gimmick. So their first impression of rationality is not as a gimmick but as something that they might be interested in. After that, they don't go to the Less Wrong website, but to the Intentional Insights website. There, they get more high-level material that slowly takes them up the level of complexity. Only some choose to go up this ladder, and most do not. Then, after they are sufficiently advanced, we introduce them to more complex content on ClearerThinking, CFAR, and LW itself. This is to avoid the problem of Endless September and other challenges. More about our strategy is in my comment.

Does the gimmick really matter once folks have clicked on your stuff

The useful words are "first impression" and "anchoring".

That's a good strategy when you have GEICO's name recognition.

How many people had heard of the Government Employee's Insurance Company prior to that advertising campaign? The important part of "GEICO can save you 15% or more on car insurance" is repeating the name. They started with a Gecko so they could repeat their name at you, over and over, in a way that wasn't tiring. It was, bluntly, a genius advertising campaign.

If you don't, maybe getting noticed isn't such a bad thing.

Your goal isn't to get noticed, your goal is to become familiar.

And maybe "One Weird Trick" is a gimmick, but then so is GEICO's caveman series - which is also associated with a stereotype of someone being stupid.

You don't notice any other elements to the caveman series? You don't notice the fact that the caveman isn't stupid? That the commercials are a mockery of their own insensitivity? That the series about a picked-upon identity suffering from a stereotype was so insanely popular that a commercial nearly spawned its own TV show?

Does the gimmick really matter once folks have clicked on your stuff and want to see what it's about? That's your chance to build some positive name recognition.

Yes, the gimmick matters. The gimmick determines people's attitude coming in. Are they coming to laugh and mock you, or to see what you have to say? And if you don't have the social competency to develop their as-yet-unformed attitude coming in, you sure as hell don't have the social competency to take control of it once they've already committed to how they see you.

Which is to say: Yes. First impressions matter.

I picked 7 Habits because it's pretty clearly rationality in my eyes, but is distinctly not LW style Rationality. Perhaps I should have picked something worse to make my point more clear.

I agree! Having good intentions does not imply the action has net benefit. I tried to communicate in my post that I see this as a situation where failure isn't likely to cause harm. Given that it isn't likely to hurt, and it might help, I think it makes sense to support in general.

(To be clear: Just because something is a net positive (in expectation) clearly doesn't imply one ought to invest resources in supporting it. Marginal utility is a thing, and I personally think there are other projects which have higher total expected-utility.)

Movement-building is categorically different from incident response. I agree that transparency and speed are the important features when it comes to incidents.

But when it comes to movement building, it seems like a bad first impression is difficult to remove, and questions of where to draw new adherents from has a significant impact on the community quality. One also has to deal with the fact that many people's identities are defined at least in part negatively--if something is a thing that those people like, then they'll dislike it because of the anticorrelation of their preferences with their enemies.

The short version of

I think you might be treating the premise given in an uncharitable way.

If however you suggest that, more frequently than not - "it's better to be quick than to be right" (the opposite opinion) - then carry on.

Which is it?

Average Lumifer is most definitely not a good model of average person

Oh, boy, am I not :-D

I do know some "more average" people, though, and they don't seem to be that easily taken by cheap tricks, at least after the first dozen times :-/ And as OrphanWilde pointed out, the aim of clickbait is not to convince you of anything, it is solely to generate the ad impressions.

I would surprised if "one weird trick" diets promoted any improvement, in part because most any diet requires some willpower and the willingness to stick with it for a while -- and the weird tricks are firmly aimed at people who have, on a good day, the attention span of a goldfish...

what's wrong with promoting it as 'one weird trick to effortlessly lose fat'?

What's wrong is that you are reinforcing the "grab the shiniest thing which promises you the most" mentality and as soon as the Stuff-Your-Face-With-Cookies diet promises you losing fat TWICE AS FAST!!eleven! the Shangri-La diet will get defenestrated as not good enough.

But how will people find out your house is in order unless you reach out to them and tell them?

Because happy people talk to their friends about their experiences. Personal recommendations carry a lot more weight than popular mainstream articles.

to show people how they can have a better life and have their house be more in order through engaging with science-backed rational thinking strategies

There are people who believe in scientism and will take a thinking strategy because someone says that it's science-based. That's not what rationality is about. I think part of this community is not simply following the authority but wanting to here the chain of reason why a certain strategy is science-based.

Thanks for the positive sentiment about the single dedicated person!

Just FYI, there's much more that Intentional Insights does than the click-bait stuff on Lifehack. We try to cover the whole range between CFAR's targeting of the top 5%, and ClearerThinking's targeting of techy young people in the coastal cities already interested in decision-making (the latter is from my conversations with Spencer Greenberg). We've been heavily orienting toward the skeptic/secular market as a start, and then right now are going into the self-improvement sector and also policy/politics commentary. We offer a wide variety of content, much of it higher-level than the self-improvement articles. I talk more about this topic in my comment about our strategy.

To be clear about taking money, Intentional Insights is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, not a for-profit company. The vast majority of our content is free, and we make our way mainly on donations.

P.S. Will keep in mind your preferences for a shirt. We currently have one that looks a lot like what you describe, here Can you let me know how that looks compared to your ideal?

I think it's easier to move from "bad shirts" to "good shirts" than from "no shirts" to "good shirts".

I think quite the reverse. Inertia is a thing and bad shirts are "we already have them".

Making some shirts is a low-effort endeavour -- just throw the design at CafePress or Zazzle and you're done.

I find your chutzpah impressive.

They are, but I still would not wear them. (And no rings for men unless you are married or have been a champion in basketball or wrestling.)

Let's differentiate two cases in whom we may want to address: 1) Aspiring rationalists: That's the easy case. Take an awesome shirt, sneak in "LW" or "pi" somewhere, and try to fly below the radar of anybody who would not like it. A moebius strip might do the same, a drawing of a cat in a box may work but also be misunderstood. 2) The not-yet aspiring rationalist: I assume, this is the main target group of InIns. I consider this way more difficult, because you have to keep the weirdness points below the gain. And you have to convey interest in a difficult-to-grasp concept on a small area. And nerds are still less "cool" than sex, drugs, and sports. A Space X T-Shirt may do the job (rockets are cool), but LW concepts? I haven't seen a convincing solution, but will ask around. Until then, the best solution to me seems to dress as your tribe expects you to find other ways of spreading the knowledge.

CFAR's approach of first focusing on figuring out what's useful advice, instead of first focusing on marketing is good.

Sounds like false dilemma. How about splitting CFAR into two groups? The first group would keep inventing better and better advice (more or less what CFAR is doing now). The second group would take the current results of their research, and try to deliver it to as many people as possible. The second group would also do the marketing. (Actually, the whole current CFAR could continue to be the first group; the only necessary thing would be to cooperate with the second one.)

You should multiply the benefit from the advice by the number of people that will receive the advice.

Yeah, it's not really a linear function. Making one person so super rational that they would build a Friendly AI and save the world may be more useful than teaching thousands of people how to organize their study time better.

But I still suspect that the CFAR approach is to a large degree influenced by "how we expect people in academia to behave".

CFAR mission wasn't marketing but actually teaching people to be more rational

And this makes a lot of sense, if you assume that advocacy is completely irrelevant to teaching people to be more rational. ('Marketing' being just another word for advocacy.) But what if both are necessary and helpful? Then it makes sense for someone to work on marketing rationality - either CFAR itself, Intentional Insights or someone else entirely.

My take is that the goal is to give more useful advice than what people are currently getting. For example, giving science-based advice on relationships as I do in this article is more useful than simple experience-based advice, which is what the vast majority of articles on self-improvement do. If it is better than why not do it?

Remember, the primary goal of Intentional Insights is not to market rationality per se, but raise the sanity waterline as such. Promoting rationality comes only after people's "level of sanity" has been raised sufficiently to engage with things like Less Wrong and CFAR. More in my comment on this topic.

This is not at all obvious to me. If someone tries something, and botches it, then when someone else goes to try that thing they may hear "wait, didn't that fail the last time around?"

This seems like a full general counterargument against trying uncertain things...

I'd be curious to hear why you think Intentional Insights is botching it if you think that is the case - it's not clear from your comment.

However, I disagree with the premise that someone botching something means other people won't do it. If that was the case, then we would have never had airplanes, for example. People will be actually more likely to try it in order to do something better because they see something has been done before and know the kind of mistakes that were made.

CFAR is looking for the correct approach to teaching rationality. InIn claims it has already found it, and will provide it to you for only two easy payments of...