= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
multifoliaterose comments on Existential Risk and Public Relations - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (613)
Thank you for your thoughtful reply; although, as will be evident, I'm not quite sure I actually got the point across.
I didn't realize at all that by "smart" you meant "instrumentally rational"; I was thinking rather more literally in terms of IQ. And I would indeed expect IQ to correlate positively with what you might call openness. More precisely, although I would expect openness to be only weak evidence of high IQ, I would expect high IQ to be more significant evidence of openness.
The point of my comment was that reading his writings reveals a huge difference between Eliezer and UFO conspiracy theorists, a difference that should be more than noticeable to anyone with an IQ high enough to be in graduate school in mathematics. Yes, of course, if all you know about a person is that they make strange claims, then you should by default assume they're a UFO/New Age type. But I submit that the fact that Eliezer has written things like these decisively entitles him to a pass on that particular inference, and anyone who doesn't grant it to him just isn't very discriminating.
My own experience is that the correlation is not very high. Most of the people who I've met who are as smart as me (e.g. in the sense of having high IQ) are not nearly as open as I am.
I did not intend to equate intelligence with instrumental rationality. The reason why I mentioned instrumental rationality is that ultimately what matters is to get people with high instrumental rationality (whether they're open minded or not) interested in existential risk.
My point is that people who are closed minded should not be barred from consideration as potentially useful existential risk researchers, that although people are being irrational to dismiss Eliezer as fast as they do, that doesn't mean that they're holistically irrational. My own experience has been that my openness has both benefits and drawbacks.
Math grad students can see a huge difference between Eliezer and UFO conspiracy theorists - they recognize that Eliezer's intellectually sophisticated. They're still biased to dismiss him out of hand. See bentram's comment
Edit: You might wonder where the bias to dismiss Eliezer comes from. I think it comes mostly from conformity, which is, sadly, very high even among very smart people.
You may be right about this; perhaps Eliezer should in fact work on his PR skills. At the same time, we shouldn't underestimate the difficulty of "recruiting" folks who are inclined to be conformists; unless there's a major change in the general sanity level of the population, x-risk talk is inevitably going to sound "weird".
This is a problem; no question about it.
I agree with this. It's all a matter of degree. Maybe at present one has to be in the top 1% of the population in nonconformity to be interested in existential risk and with better PR one could reduce the level of nonconformity required to the top 5% level.
(I don't know whether these numbers are right, but this is the sort of thing that I have in mind - I find it very likely that there are people who are nonconformist enough to potentially be interested in existential risk but too conformist to take it seriously unless the people who are involved seem highly credible.)
I would perhaps expand 'conformity' to include neighbouring social factors - in-group/outgroup, personal affiliation/alliances, territorialism, etc.