> I think the biggest factor for us was that most attendees already had some technical baseline. That makes it way easier to pick papers and have productive discussions.

Thanks for sharing your experience.

How do you suss out peoples technical aptitude, and what was the minimum level you were looking for?

How were your discussions structured?

> The meetings themselves are just an hour, so it's not a massive time block

How exactly are the meetings structured? I.e is someone leading discussions? Does each person go around and share thoughts? Etc

I would be interested to hear others experiences with running these types of groups. We’ve tried this a couple of times at my current job and both times it’s petered out - people don’t do the assigned reading and then just stop attending.

Any suggestions on how to keep such a group alive?

> The downplaying of Iran’s capabilities is a weird kind of racism IMHO.

Agreed, but it’s not at all surprising to me. Propaganda means that people will project fictitious motives and capabilities on their opponents, even if they are internally inconsistent (e.g. Iran must be attacked because they will threaten the USA mainland vs Iran’s missiles are very inaccurate and barely hit anything).

> it is rational to draw the conclusion that your reasoning (and sourcing) is motivated.

Have you provided any sources at all for you numerous claims throughout this thread? Would it also me rational to draw a the conclusion that someone who has provided no sources at all is also engaging in “motivated reasoning”? At least be consistent.