Rationality Meetups (session 1): Argument and Analysis
Kavárna U Vojtěcha, Šmeralova 292/12, Praha - Letná
Česky/English depending on attendees
Jiří Nádvodník
Join us for a series of six open-format meetings, taking place twice a month on Tuesdays from October to December. There’s no need to register in advance; you are welcome to join even if you can’t attend every session. The meetings will feature discussions based on required readings, focusing primarily on the works of Scott Alexander (author of the Astral Codex Ten blog). It’s an opportunity to deepen your understanding of key rationalist topics and explore them with others. English speakers welcome.
What’s the Goal?
The sessions are for both regular participants who want to catch up on classic texts and expand their knowledge, as well as for newcomers eager to dive into valuable rationalist literature.
The upcoming 1st session: Argument and Analysis (October 1)
The first session will be led by Jiří Nádvorník. The session will engage in a sequence of essays by Scott Alexander on how arguments work, how to use them, and how to misuse them. We will explore why accepting excuses can lead to unintended consequences, how slippery slopes challenge the boundaries of decision-making, and how social dynamics shape individual behavior—particularly through counter-signaling and contrarianism. Additionally, we will examine the pitfalls of debates that revolve around personal bravery or cultural opposition, and the dangers of selective rigor in arguments. Through these topics, we aim to understand the interplay between individual rationality, societal expectations, and ethical consistency.
Meeting dates and readings for the later sessions in the series:
2nd session: Near vs. Far Mode of Thinking (October 15)
The second session will also be facilitated by Jiří Nádvodník. We will dive into writings by Robin Hanson on the Near vs. Far modes of thinking also known as the Construal Level Theory, which explores how psychological distance—whether in time, space, or personal relevance—shapes our thinking. Distant events lead us to think more abstractly and idealistically, influencing how we make decisions, predict outcomes, and form moral judgments. While this abstract thinking enables greater perspective and future planning, it also brings risks of hypocrisy and self-deception. We’ll examine how these cognitive shifts impact both individual behavior and societal development.
Each of us will be able to pick 4 articles from the NearFar category on the blog. We will also optionally read two academic papers that challenge the theory.
3rd session: Probability and Predictions (October 29)
The third session will be led by Vojtěch Brynych. To give you an idea about the content, here is the intro of the chapter:
Nearly everyone is very very very overconfident. We know this from experiments where people answer true/false trivia questions, then are asked to state how confident they are in their answer. If people’s confidence was well-calibrated, someone who said they were 99% confident (ie only 1% chance they’re wrong) would get the question wrong only 1% of the time. In fact, people who say they are 99% confident get the question wrong about 20% of the time.
It gets worse. People who say there’s only a 1 in 100,000 chance they’re wrong? Wrong 15% of the time. One in a million? Wrong 5% of the time. They’re not just overconfident, they are fifty thousand times as confident as they should be.
4th session: Studies and Statistics (November 12)
The third session will be facilitated by Vojtěch Brynych. Here’s the intro to the chapter on LessWrong:
“Aquinas famously said: beware the man of one book. I would add: beware the man of one study.
For example, take medical research. Suppose a certain drug is weakly effective against a certain disease. After a few years, a bunch of different research groups have gotten their hands on it and done all sorts of different studies. In the best case scenario the average study will find the true result – that it’s weakly effective. But there are also about 5 studies that find that the drug is very good, and 5 studies missing the sign entirely and finding that the drug is actively bad. There’s even 1 study finding that the drug is very bad, maybe seriously dangerous.”
5th session: Politics & Economics (November 26)
The next session will be facilitated by Hana Kalivodová. It will have two sub-themes:
A series of explorations examines human efforts to control nature, time, and society. Albion’s Seed and genetic studies reveal historical settlement patterns, while critiques of social vs. biological solutions argue for more focus on biology in issues like ADHD. Humorous philosophical sketches explore thinkers‘ ideas, and in a fictional tale, a town experiences a yearly time reversal, a remnant of humanity’s failed attempt to control time. Together, these works explore the limits of human knowledge and the consequences of hubris.
If you’re intrigued by the intersection of economics, culture, and philosophy, Scott Alexander’s writings offer a deep dive into the inefficiencies plaguing modern society, the clash between traditional values and rapid economic progress, and the complex moral questions these changes raise. From dissecting skyrocketing healthcare costs to satirizing gods struggling for relevance in a capitalist world, Alexander blends sharp analysis with engaging storytelling. Whether you’re curious about market distortions, fascinated by the decline of ancient power structures, or searching for pragmatic ethical reasoning in a world driven by efficiency, these chapters offer a rich, thought-provoking journey.
6th session: Categorisation and Concepts (December 10)
The last session will also be led by Hana Kalivodová. We will explore the ways in which human categories, moral judgments, and societal norms shape our understanding of complex issues, from illness and personal behavior to political debates and group identities. We’ll examine how labels and classifications can influence both individual and collective responses, and discuss when it’s productive to sympathize or condemn certain actions or conditions. We’ll also delve into how seemingly objective terms or categories are often used in misleading ways, distorting logical arguments and driving emotional or symbolic conflicts. Through this, we aim to uncover how our thinking can be refined to better navigate moral, social, and empirical questions.
Not able to attend?
If you are interested in the topic but cannot attend due to time constraints, for example, leave us your contact details and we will get back to you with other opportunities (events, discussions, lectures, projects): https://forms.gle/jqVaFWPhcPZmiFFy8.