Rationalist Storybooks: A Challenge

I wonder if poems designed to warn children against advertising could vaguely be included here?

Anyway, here's my attempt. I originally just planed it to be about confirmation bias, but it grew to encompass other things.

Little Johny thought he was very bright,
But the schoolkids did not -- they would laugh when he came in sight.
He could count, sing, and guess the weather.
Then one day, Big Bill said "Real bright boys will grow a feather."

"Ach!" he cried, "Could it be true?"
"Then I'm not bright, which makes me blue."
So he went home, and searched all over.
And then found growth on his head, clear as a clover.

"It is true, feathers are sprouting!"
"It's proof that I'm bright!" So he stopped pouting.
He ran to show his mom, nearly tripping over some eggs,
When he saw on TV "Bright boys will grow long legs."

So he waited for weeks and weeks for to find proof,
Worried over his brightness, and staying quite aloof,
Until one day, feeling in a pinch,
He grabbed a tape measure, and found his legs had grown a whole inch!

So he leaped off to school, but a scientist walked by,
And Johny overheard him say, that real bright boys could fly.
"The hair, the legs, from these I know
Of my brightness. The flying thus follows, so..."

Little Johny plotted of his grand display,
Standing high on a wall, he would proudly say
"Behold, I have proof that I'm bright!"
And he would deftly leap off, and soar into flight.

So he climbed up the wall, and made his speech,
But there his plan stopped with a screech,
For he hit the ground hard with a smack,
Leaving his leg all bloody and black.

As the other children laughed, he tried to explain,
Of the things that he heard, and why he had taken it to his brain,
"They came from on high, from people who knew
I looked at myself, and saw they were true."

They laughed, "You're too eager to believe, you fool.
Your feathers are just hair, all boys grow long legs as a rule.
Yes, if all you heard were true, you'd fly, but you'll find out,
That if you do logic with garbage, then you'll get garbage out."

So Johny thought wrongly, and got his leg in a cast,
He had sought fame in the schoolyard, but now that's all past.
He's taken the lesson to heart, no longer believes all he hears.
So he doesn't believe them when they say he's not bright -- brightness doesn't come from peers.

I happen to think that Hans Christen Andersen did a pretty good job with "The Emperor's New Clothes". One of the best examinations of the various reasons why people groupthink and groupspeak, and it's not only directed at but is highly enjoyable by children!

Parents actually read it to their kids, even theists. I always found that amazing. It's like they're not actually aware of the point of the story on some level.

"Cinderella, dressed in yella / Had a theory she would tellya / How much evidence could she ignore / Before her listeners start to bore? / One, two, three--"

James Thurber wrote an amusing one-page parody of The Tortoise and the Hare that serves as a nice explanation of publication bias.

I think it's great that people are identifying existing children's tales that serve this purpose. Since they are already written, and in many cases out of copyright, they are the low-hanging fruit we can use to jump-start a Rationalist's Book of Tales.

Dr. Seuss wrote some great rationality stories for children. I Had Trouble In Getting To Solla Sollew, The Sneeches, and The Butter Battle Book, just off the top of my head.

I can offer a rationalist jump-rope couplet: A long walk starts with a single step, Solve the first problem first and the next one next. One, two, three, four...

13 years later: did anyone end up actually making such a book?

Here's my first attempt. It was meant to be about confirmation bias. On rereading it, it seems more like it's about finding the positives in bleak situations. I guess that's important, too.

Nothing much happened this week, you tell your mum at week's end. Because 'nothing' never gets mentioned, when talking to your friend.

Because inside all that nothing, there are things both here and there. If a room is mostly empty, You'll find a table or a chair.

On Monday you did nothing, except you stubbed your toe.

On Tuesday you did nothing, but it begain to snow.

On Wednesday you did nothing, except you found that money.

On Thursday you did nothing, except you spilled that hunny.

On Friday you did nothing, except you cleaned that fluff.

But now remembering your empty week, do you think of all that stuff?

So telling your friend about that room, Or your mum about your week. Now that room is full of stuff. Your week is not so bleak.

Teach Timeless Decision Theory via a Choose-Your-Own Adventure Book?

I tried to do some of them, but I found that I often felt that I needed more prerequisites even when Eliezer's posts did not themselves have any prerequisites. I guess EY can assume that we know certain things which I cannot assume 5 year olds know (for example, that your parents don't have infinite money).

I'll keep hacking away at it, I guess, but I'm having a hard time finding a starting point.

I seem to recall Richard Dawkins expressing a desire to write something like this in the future.

I've heard this story that we have to teach things to children at a young age in order for them to fully embrace it before, but is there any evidence of this actually happening? Moreover, what's wrong with people opting into being rational?

This is a version of "what's the time, Mr Wolf".

Participants: one "it" and several other players.

Setup:

(IT stands against a wall, eyes closed or blindfold. PLAYERS stand some distance away facing IT.)

IT: "I'm the man who's found a truth"

PLAYERS: "we don't believe you"

Repeating round:

PLAYERS "we have bits of evidence" (they take a step forward)

IT (tries to guess where they are by sound, if he does he lunges and touches a PLAYER, and says) "I refute you" (he only gets one lunge per round)

Repeat the round until either

1. the PLAYERS sneak up behind IT, "we have N bits of evidence and you're wrong" (they lunge, touch IT and he loses)

2. IT touches the last PLAYER with a lunge "I refute you all", and he wins

deleted

nice work. but i don't know if the word bayesian should be in the title.

also, why have a scientist say something so stupid?