6 ms·

This exactly. Critical thinking, psychology, and interpersonal communication (with emphasis on building shared understanding) need to be explicitly taught in sc

This exactly. Critical thinking, psychology, and interpersonal communication (with emphasis on building shared understanding) need to be explicitly taught in schools. We already have children memorize state capitals: they can memorize cognitive biases, mental models, meta-models/heuristics, empathy/communication techniques, and the a basic explanation of the psychology/neuroscience that backs them up. This will allow children to effectively deal with their own flaws, and those of others. Combining that with practical online/offline research skills and more hands-on experience of macro/microeconomics would leave children much more equipped to deeply and intuitively understand people and the world. It's definitely not beyond their capacity either, all children figure out a smattering of these for themselves anyways, they just don't learn the names. Even the rather sharp ones only have a few more, or maybe one especially-honed one, but that's all it takes to make a big difference. "A change in perspective is worth 80 IQ points" - Alan Kay As an aside, children that develop significantly advantageous models early on often end up over-relying on them later, another potential-wasting issue we could avoid by making those children aware of what's going on in their brains.

jacobolus 9y ago
> they can memorize cognitive biases, mental models, meta-models/heuristics, empathy/communication techniques, and the a basic explanation of the psychology/neuroscience that backs them up. This will allow children to effectively deal with their own flaws, and those of others. This reads like a parody. Memorizing a list of definitions isn’t going to accomplish much of anything, any more than memorizing a list of equipment names will turn someone into a doctor or engineer. These are tricky concepts/tools, and wielding them properly takes serious expertise. Students need (years of copious) experience reading, making, and analyzing increasingly subtle and sophisticated arguments with significant amounts of feedback from other students and expert teachers/mentors to come to a journeyman-level understanding of logic and rhetoric. Critical introspection is even harder; adults have trouble with it after decades of liberal arts education, professional school, work, personal relationships, meditation, therapy, ....
- ewjordan 9y ago
  Adults have trouble with all this stuff because mostly they don't learn it at all, even with a liberal arts education or any of the other things you mention. The entire rationalism movement is essentially founded based on the fact that ostensibly educated people don't realize how badly their brains work by default. The greatest superpower we have as humans is that we have the ability to introspect, and second guess our immediate responses in light of what we've learned. That allows us to jump to conclusions much quicker on shoddy evidence, because we can course correct later as we gather more, and it's super effective as a learning strategy. Learning how to better correct our initial hypotheses helps us perform even better, but it requires us to actually study the things that humans tend to get wrong. Most education, professions, and life experiences do not support that goal, so it's an easy win if you go outside the system to do so.
  - jacobolus 9y ago
    Judging from the people I know who identify themselves with the “rationalism movement”, occasionally reading topical blog posts doesn’t inherently teach introspection (or even reasoning) any better than high school, though its adherents are pretty good at rattling off lists of logical fallacies and getting distracted by meta-arguments about which particular one applies in a given situation. [Or by “rationalism movement” are you talking about, say, philosophy / sociology / anthropology / behavioral economics / history Ph.Ds or licensed psychiatrists? That would be something like the years of dedicated training I was talking about, though those fields have different modes of inquiry and different subjects of study, and some are surely better at reasoning / rhetoric / self reflection than others.]
    - ewjordan 9y ago
      You're right, reading occasional blog posts doesn't do anything for anyone, on pretty much any topic. I'd argue that anyone professing to be a rationalist on those grounds is lying to themselves. Also worth pointing out that the rationalist community has a lot of issues and biases that mostly spring from focus problems - like any group, they tend to hyper-analyze a few pet issues that draw their attention and then ignore the rest of the world. Even if they're correctly analyzing those issues, the social problem of biased community focus ends up thwarting the goal of overall rationality. I don't think this is a problem specific to rationalists, rather a general failure of human communication (for any -ism, you'll find that people have tunnel vision and tend to force everything they see and hear through the lens of that -ism), but it is rightly criticized more there because the movement claims to be better at seeking truth than others. I have no idea how to solve that problem, it's really an emergent result of what gets people hot and bothered and draws their attention and analysis, which is an innate human irrationality and extremely hard to think your way around.
programmarchy 9y ago
People with sub-100 IQs are probably not going to be able to achieve the level of critical thinking you're talking about. There's a genetic component to that level of intelligence, and it's not an easy problem that can be solved by teaching people a few tips and tricks. On top of that, the public education system is not designed to produce critical thinking people, but rather people who can memorize and follow orders. Not that things can't ever change, but there's a lot more work to do than making a few tweaks to a curriculum.
- gt_ 9y ago
  All good points, hard to argue with. What would you suggest be done?
  - programmarchy 9y ago
    Remove control of education from the federal level and return the money and decision-making power to the local levels. Stop all the one-size-fits-all programs that don’t work and make schools highly competitive and merit-based. If the federal level is involved it should be to grant scholarships to high performing students, and invest more in trade schools for students that may not achieve high academic marks but have other talents that could be developed. End welfare programs that subsidize r-selected birth rates, and give tax cuts and incentives to R-selected birth rates, with the goal of boosting the national average IQ. Finally, invest heavily in genetic testing and editing research which would allow parents to select or modify embryos to have genes that correlate with higher intelligence, like China has promised to do. Basically, go all in on intelligence and address the issue at the biological rather than the cultural level.

jacobolus 9y ago

> they can memorize cognitive biases, mental models, meta-models/heuristics, empathy/communication techniques, and the a basic explanation of the psychology/neuroscience that backs them up. This will allow children to effectively deal with their own flaws, and those of others. This reads like a parody. Memorizing a list of definitions isn’t going to accomplish much of anything, any more than memorizing a list of equipment names will turn someone into a doctor or engineer. These are tricky concepts/tools, and wielding them properly takes serious expertise. Students need (years of copious) experience reading, making, and analyzing increasingly subtle and sophisticated arguments with significant amounts of feedback from other students and expert teachers/mentors to come to a journeyman-level understanding of logic and rhetoric. Critical introspection is even harder; adults have trouble with it after decades of liberal arts education, professional school, work, personal relationships, meditation, therapy, ....

ewjordan 9y ago
Adults have trouble with all this stuff because mostly they don't learn it at all, even with a liberal arts education or any of the other things you mention. The entire rationalism movement is essentially founded based on the fact that ostensibly educated people don't realize how badly their brains work by default. The greatest superpower we have as humans is that we have the ability to introspect, and second guess our immediate responses in light of what we've learned. That allows us to jump to conclusions much quicker on shoddy evidence, because we can course correct later as we gather more, and it's super effective as a learning strategy. Learning how to better correct our initial hypotheses helps us perform even better, but it requires us to actually study the things that humans tend to get wrong. Most education, professions, and life experiences do not support that goal, so it's an easy win if you go outside the system to do so.
- jacobolus 9y ago
  Judging from the people I know who identify themselves with the “rationalism movement”, occasionally reading topical blog posts doesn’t inherently teach introspection (or even reasoning) any better than high school, though its adherents are pretty good at rattling off lists of logical fallacies and getting distracted by meta-arguments about which particular one applies in a given situation. [Or by “rationalism movement” are you talking about, say, philosophy / sociology / anthropology / behavioral economics / history Ph.Ds or licensed psychiatrists? That would be something like the years of dedicated training I was talking about, though those fields have different modes of inquiry and different subjects of study, and some are surely better at reasoning / rhetoric / self reflection than others.]
  - ewjordan 9y ago
    You're right, reading occasional blog posts doesn't do anything for anyone, on pretty much any topic. I'd argue that anyone professing to be a rationalist on those grounds is lying to themselves. Also worth pointing out that the rationalist community has a lot of issues and biases that mostly spring from focus problems - like any group, they tend to hyper-analyze a few pet issues that draw their attention and then ignore the rest of the world. Even if they're correctly analyzing those issues, the social problem of biased community focus ends up thwarting the goal of overall rationality. I don't think this is a problem specific to rationalists, rather a general failure of human communication (for any -ism, you'll find that people have tunnel vision and tend to force everything they see and hear through the lens of that -ism), but it is rightly criticized more there because the movement claims to be better at seeking truth than others. I have no idea how to solve that problem, it's really an emergent result of what gets people hot and bothered and draws their attention and analysis, which is an innate human irrationality and extremely hard to think your way around.

programmarchy 9y ago

People with sub-100 IQs are probably not going to be able to achieve the level of critical thinking you're talking about. There's a genetic component to that level of intelligence, and it's not an easy problem that can be solved by teaching people a few tips and tricks. On top of that, the public education system is not designed to produce critical thinking people, but rather people who can memorize and follow orders. Not that things can't ever change, but there's a lot more work to do than making a few tweaks to a curriculum.

gt_ 9y ago
All good points, hard to argue with. What would you suggest be done?
- programmarchy 9y ago
  Remove control of education from the federal level and return the money and decision-making power to the local levels. Stop all the one-size-fits-all programs that don’t work and make schools highly competitive and merit-based. If the federal level is involved it should be to grant scholarships to high performing students, and invest more in trade schools for students that may not achieve high academic marks but have other talents that could be developed. End welfare programs that subsidize r-selected birth rates, and give tax cuts and incentives to R-selected birth rates, with the goal of boosting the national average IQ. Finally, invest heavily in genetic testing and editing research which would allow parents to select or modify embryos to have genes that correlate with higher intelligence, like China has promised to do. Basically, go all in on intelligence and address the issue at the biological rather than the cultural level.