Hyena comments on Don't call yourself a rationalist. - Less Wrong

16 Post author: KenChen 14 October 2011 08:26PM

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

Comments (118)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Hyena 15 October 2011 12:58:47AM 10 points [-]

I always call you all "LessWrongians" or "the people at LessWrong" sometimes also using the word "dudes".

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 15 October 2011 01:11:46PM 9 points [-]

A somehow arbitrary name is good, because it allows better compartmentalization.

Just like "Mensa" is better than "people more intelligent than you", or "Toastmasters" is better than "people who can speak better than you", also "LessWrongians" is better than "people who are more rational than you".

Of course we usually don't say "people who are more rational than you"; we say "rationalists" instead... but saying it differently does not prevent the audience from decoding the (real or percieved) original meaning.

Being a member of a group with arbitrary name is a hobby. Being a member of a group with some property X in the name suggests that your environment is somehow non-X or not-enough-X, otherwise you would not need such group.

Comment author: atorm 15 October 2011 03:37:47PM 8 points [-]

Mensa has negative connotations in the minds of some people. I considered joining Mensa but decided against it when all of my friends said that people in Mensa are all arrogant, self-impressed jerks. Note that as far as I know, none of my friends know anyone in Mensa, they just have a pre-conceived idea of what Mensans are like.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 15 October 2011 09:01:15PM 13 points [-]

I considered joining Mensa but decided against it when all of my friends said that people in Mensa are all arrogant, self-impressed jerks.

People who join Mensa usually do it for signalling. People who criticize Mensa usually do it for signalling. Both groups enjoy the idea of being better than the other group. You could join Mensa and criticize it, for double signalling. I did. :D

I have met a few interesting people there, but the organization is mostly disappointing. It does not have a goal. Well, officially it does: the goal is to study intelligence and provide a stimulating environment for its members. But most members just meet and talk about whatever and also how intelligent they are and how the world does not reward their intelligence. I am afraid than any pseudoscience or conspiracy theory would be more welcome than rationality.

But if Mensa in your country is large enough, perhaps you could use it as a filter, find rational people inside Mensa, and start a local Bayesian conspiracy. Mensa can preselect intelligent people who search for something new. If Mensa will disappoint you, it will probably disappoint many new members too -- these people are already preselected for intelligence and searching for something new, just collect their contacts soon and send them to LW.

Comment author: Desrtopa 15 October 2011 07:11:03PM 4 points [-]

Personally, I was somewhat insulted when my mother suggested to me that I should join Mensa; I couldn't see any way that being a member could be beneficial for me status-wise.

Comment author: atorm 15 October 2011 07:25:29PM 2 points [-]

Also, really? No benefit? It's a very obvious mark of intelligence, so anyone who is impressed by that and doesn't have any negative connotations associated with the organization is going to see being a member as high-status.

Comment author: Desrtopa 15 October 2011 08:06:09PM 3 points [-]

Yes, but it's not like I have difficulty signalling high intelligence without Mensa membership, without having to bring in the frequently negative connotations of being one.

Comment author: Rubix 19 October 2011 05:18:17AM 2 points [-]
Comment author: atorm 15 October 2011 07:12:53PM 1 point [-]

Their claimed benefit is the opportunity to hang out with people of a similar intelligence.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 15 October 2011 04:47:57PM 5 points [-]

This is a bit of a Red Queen's Race: as the "arbitrary" proper noun becomes associated with property X, people start to respond to it as a generic referent to property X. If I want to avoid those responses by this strategy, I end up having to discard one term after another after another, always looking for a term that people don't have a referent for. It's kind of the opposite of clear communication, and gets tedious after a couple of decades.

It's also possible to turn this around. I was a member of an aphasics support group for a while (while recovering from brain damage) and in general this got framed, not as "my environment is insufficiently supportive of aphasics" but "I need more support for dealing with my aphasia than my environment provides." The difference is at best subtle, but it's frequently the difference between people feeling accused of inadequacy and not.

For what it's worth: I've been to a few Mensa gatherings (a coworker of mine was an active member and invited me regularly) and tend to think of Mensa, not as "people more intelligent...", but people who care more about being intelligent. I was a Toastmasters member for several years, I tend to think of Toastmasters as people who care more about speaking well. I've been intermittently active here for a while, and tend to think of the folks here as people who care more about rationality (and in some cases about behaving rationally). If that perception were more ubiquitous it might help... being implicitly accused of not caring enough about positive trait X is less of a challenge than being implicitly accused of lacking X.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 15 October 2011 09:10:07PM 2 points [-]

This is a bit of a Red Queen's Race: as the "arbitrary" proper noun becomes associated with property X, people start to respond to it as a generic referent to property X.

This depends on how widely the name is known. "Mensa" is known enough, so many people have associations with it. When a random person on a street will know who "LessWrongians" are, then... well, hopefully at that time the waterline of sanity will be higher than today. But until then, "LessWrongians" means nothing to most people; and if necessary, you can always reframe it as a group of Yudkowsky's fanfic fans.

Comment author: steven0461 20 October 2011 08:00:37PM *  3 points [-]

Just like "Mensa" is better than "people more intelligent than you", or "Toastmasters" is better than "people who can speak better than you", also "LessWrongians" is better than "people who are more rational than you".

It's easy to start seeing "LessWrong" as an arbitrary label if you're used to the name, but it totally does have a confrontational meaning in the way that "Mensa" and "Toastmasters" don't and in the way that "more rational than you" does.

Comment author: atorm 15 October 2011 03:38:26PM 4 points [-]

I think we should call people at Less Wrong the Illuminati. There's no way that could have any negative connotations, right?

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 15 October 2011 03:34:59AM 4 points [-]

I tend to think of y'all as the Lessiath (no relation) or LessWrongenath but it doesn't work as well in verbal conversation.

Comment author: pedanterrific 15 October 2011 05:12:55AM *  2 points [-]

Lessirim seems more euphonious, but I get why you wouldn't like the connotation.

Edit: Goodness, "Lessoth" is practically canon! And the self-deprecatory implications... my new favorite word.

Comment author: Normal_Anomaly 16 October 2011 01:53:40AM 1 point [-]

Google is not turning up much for "lessoth" or "lessiath". Can you explain?

Comment author: pedanterrific 16 October 2011 02:28:03AM *  9 points [-]

... Tolkien states that "the suffix -ath (originally a collective noun-suffix) was used as a group plural, embracing all things of the same name, or those associated in some special arrangement or organization. So elenath (as plural of êl, [irregular] pl. elin) meant 'the host of the stars' ...

Yet another ending is -hoth "folk, host, horde", ... The Silmarillion Appendix (entry hoth) states that this ending is "nearly always used in a bad sense" ... The one who first called the Snowmen of Forochel Lossoth (for *Loss-hoth, loss = "snow") evidently did not like them.

- Sindarin, the Noble Tongue

Comment author: Nisan 16 October 2011 05:16:58PM 5 points [-]

Relevant username is relevant.

Comment author: [deleted] 15 October 2011 08:02:46PM *  1 point [-]

Yay we're an Eldritch Abomination!

Comment author: pedanterrific 16 October 2011 12:05:59AM 1 point [-]