taryneast comments on Reflections on rationality a year out - Less Wrong

90 [deleted] 31 March 2011 01:35AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (105)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: ohwilleke 31 March 2011 02:28:27AM 0 points [-]

FWIW, I am inclined to think that "rationality" is a bad brand identification for a good thing. Rationality conjures up "Spock" (the Star Trek character) not "Spock" (the compassionate and wise child rearing guru). It puts an emphasis on a very inhuman part of the kind of human being you feel you are becoming.

Whatever it means in your context, as a brand to evangelize to others about its benefits, it is lacking. Better, in the sense of offering a positive vision, perhaps than "atheism" or "secularism" but not still not grounded and humane enough. I like "naturalist" better, although it is loaded with the connotation of bird watching, and also "humanist" although the term, without the modifier "secular" can mean little more than someone who gives a damn. "Enlightened" (as in the Enlightenment era) might be a good term if it weren't so damned arrogant in the modern vernacular.

The sense that I think you are trying to capture of something of the sense conveyed by the title to Carl Sagan's book "Demon Haunted World." You want to convey the joys of having exorcised the demons and opening yourself to seeing the world more clearly. But, to sell it to others, I think it is necessary to find a better marketing plan.

Comment author: taryneast 31 March 2011 02:56:01PM 0 points [-]

Have you heard of The Brights movement ?

It was kind of inspired by the gay movement as an attempt to find a word for atheism that was more socially acceptable ie without all the negative baggage, and embracing/popularising it.

Comment author: Desrtopa 31 March 2011 02:59:09PM 6 points [-]

I've never been particularly fond of it, it always struck me as too self aggrandizing. It particularly upset me when my sister started identifying me as a Bright to other people without my permission.

Comment author: mstevens 31 March 2011 03:57:32PM 11 points [-]

I have heard of it.

I think it's an awful name, exactly on the grounds of having huge negative baggage. For me, at least, it has strong associations of smug, superior, condescending, and other such qualities.

Comment author: taryneast 31 March 2011 05:08:30PM 2 points [-]

Yep - correlating it with "being intelligent" seems to be a bit of a PR disaster... which the brights have tried to counter by calling non-brights "supers" .

Not sure if that's worked at all... I keep occasional tabs on what's happening in that community but don't really consider myself an active member. I think the heart is in the right place - especially in the US where religiosity is at a much more fervent level. but not sure it's really proven effective yet... but then I might be able to say similar things about this community :)

Comment author: ciphergoth 01 April 2011 07:41:26AM 1 point [-]
Comment author: Sniffnoy 01 April 2011 07:50:02AM 4 points [-]

The images don't seem to work there?

Comment author: RichardKennaway 01 April 2011 01:06:29PM 3 points [-]

When I open the image in a separate window, I get a message that I don't have permission to access it.

Comment author: David_Gerard 01 April 2011 10:29:18AM *  1 point [-]

It took me looking at Brights on Wikipedia then a moment's imagination to work out what he would have come up with.

Comment author: ohwilleke 31 March 2011 09:22:38PM 1 point [-]

I have, and even started to mention it, but figured that I was going too far afield. I think the problem there is that the established meaning of "Bright" as intelligent, overshadows the secondary meaning that is sought. I think "light" as a metaphor is promising, but the word "Bright" in particular, is inapt.