Guess I'm a rationalist now

While both sides have been engaged in crimes against humanity, only one is engaged in a violent occupation, by any stretch of the imagination.

Biologists don't try to reason everything from first principles.

Actually, neither do Rationalists, but instead they cosplay at being rational.

Yeah I don't know or really care about Rationalism or whatever. But I took Aaronson's advice and read Zvi Mowshowitz' Childhood and Education #9: School is Hell [0], and while I share many of the criticisms (and cards on the table I also had pretty bad school experiences), I would have a hard time jumping onto this bus.

One point is that when Mowshowitz is dispelling the argument that abuse rates are much higher for homeschooled kids, he (and the counterargument in general) references a study [1] showing that abuse rates for non-homeschooled kids are similarly high: both around 37%. That paper's no good though! Their conclusion is "We estimate that 37.4% of all children experience a child protective services investigation by age 18 years." 37.4%? That's 27m kids! How can CPS run so many investigations? That's 4k investigations a day over 18 years, no holidays or weekends. Nah. Here are some good numbers (that I got to from the bad study, FWIW) [2], they're around 4.2%.

But, more broadly, the worst failing of the US educational system isn't how it treats smart kids, it's how it treats kids for whom it fails. If you're not the 80% of kids who can somehow make it in the school system, you're doomed. Mowshowitz' article is nearly entirely dedicated to how hard it is to liberate your suffering, gifted student from the prison of public education. This is a real problem! I agree it would be good to solve it!

But, it's just not the problem. Again I'm sympathetic to and agree with a lot of the points in the article, but you can really boil it down to "let smart, wealthy parents homeschool their kids without social media scorn". Fine, I guess. No one's stopping you from deleting your account and moving to California. But it's not an efficient use of resources--and it's certainly a terrible political strategy--to focus on such a small fraction of the population, and to be clear this is the absolute nicest way I can characterize these kinds of policy positions. This thing is going nowhere as long as it stays so self-obsessed.

[0]: https://thezvi.substack.com/p/childhood-and-education-9-scho...

[1]: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5227926/

[2]: https://acf.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cb/cm2023.pdf

> Biologists don't try to reason everything from first principles.

What do you mean? The biologists I've had the privilege of working with absolutely do try to. Obviously some work at a higher level of abstraction than others, but I've not met any who apply any magical thinking to the actual biological investigation. In particular (at least in my milieu), I have found that the typical biologist is more likely to consider quantum effects than the typical physicist. On the other hand (again, from my limited experience), biologists do tend to have some magical thinking about how statistics (and particularly hypothesis testing) works, but no one is perfect.

I don't claim that his work is original (the AI related probably is, but it's just tangentially related to rationalism), but it's clearly presented and is practical.

And, BTW, I could just be ignorant in a lot of these topics, I take no offense in that. Still I think most people can learn something from an unprejudiced reading.