I strongly agree that more EAs doing independent thinking really important, and I’m very interested in interventions that push in that direction. In my capacity as a CFAR instructor and curriculum developer, figuring out ways to do this is close to my main goal.
I think many individual EAs should be challenged to generate less confused models on these topics, and from there between models is when deliberation like double crux should start.
Strongly agree.
I don’t think in the span of only a couple minutes either side of a double crux game will generate an excellent but controversial hypothesis worth challenging.
I think this misses the point a little. People at EAG have some implicit model that they’re operating from, even if it isn’t well-considered. The point of the exercise in this context is not to get all the way to the correct belief, but rather to engage with what one thinks and what would cause them to change their mind.
This Double Crux is part of the de-confusion and model building process.
I strongly agree that more EAs doing independent thinking really important, and I’m very interested in interventions that push in that direction. In my capacity as a CFAR instructor and curriculum developer, figuring out ways to do this is close to my main goal.
Strongly agree.
I think this misses the point a little. People at EAG have some implicit model that they’re operating from, even if it isn’t well-considered. The point of the exercise in this context is not to get all the way to the correct belief, but rather to engage with what one thinks and what would cause them to change their mind.
This Double Crux is part of the de-confusion and model building process.