Posts
Comments
Thank you for clarifying. I wasn't aware of those, and to be honest they seem a bit difficult to find information about via Less Wrong as a new reader. Meetups are publicized in the sidebar, but nothing about these dojos. Not even under the About section's extensive list of links. Which surprises me, if the creation of these dojos was a goal of Eliezer's from his very first blog post here.
If appeal to those who already care about rationality, followed by word of mouth advertising, is the approach that the dojos have decided to take rather than a more general appeal to the populace as part of raising the sanity waterline, then I concede the point.
In reading these Sequences, I am noting that it is sometimes difficult to tell when you are building on an older body of work and when you are unaware of the older body of work and are independently deriving an equivalent concept. Semantic stopsigns is a particularly good example of this. Are you aware of the existence of another term for this: the thought-terminating cliché? (Sometimes thought-stopping cliché.) There is some fascinating literature on the subject of their use in cults, which may be directly applicable to understanding Dark Side techniques. For example: Singer, Margaret Thaler, Maurice K. Temerlin, and Michael D. Langone. "Psychotherapy cults." Cultic Studies Journal 7.2 (1990): 101-125.
In 2009 there were no rationality dojo's but today there are multiple one's in different cities.
I'm new here, and I still have a great deal of content to catch up on reading, so it would be helpful if you could clarify: are you here referring to the Less Wrong meetup groups as "rationality dojos", or something else which has been created to fill this void since 2009?
Debate in clubs like this is about finding good arguments, it's not about finding out which side is right.
I thought I had been very careful to draw a clear distinction between what such clubs are about and actual rationality, while still contending that the perception of the average person (the non-rationalist) is that they are the same. Was I unclear? And, if so, how could I have been more clear than I was?
As a thought, could it be that one of the major obstacles standing in the way of the creation of a "rationality dojo" is the public perception (however inaccurate) that such already exists in not just one but multiple forms? Take the average high school debate club as one example: participants are expected to learn to give a reasoned argument, and to avoid fallacious reasoning while recognizing it in their opponents. Another example would be maths classes, wherein people are expected to learn how to construct a sound mathematical proof. I very much doubt that most people would understand the distinction between these and the proposed "rationality dojo", which would make it very hard to establish one.