= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
PhilGoetz comments on Mandatory Secret Identities - 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 (177)
(Blinks.)
I wonder if this idea comes as a shock because everyone was planning on becoming rationality instructors, i.e., I should have warned everyone about this much earlier?
Is it offputting on some other level?
But I must also consider that it might really be that stupid. Damn, now I wish I knew the actual number of upvotes and downvotes!
It's an idea that is common among writers (with respect to writing instructors). Not the secret identity part, though. <EDIT> Eliezer's idea is a bit different, because success in any area of life should indicate rationality. </EDIT>
I don't understand the secret identity part. If one identity is secret, how are students supposed to know whether to respect the instructor for accomplishments under his/her non-instructor identity?
(If you're a rationality instructor or practitioner, having a secret identity is probably a good idea anyway, so you're not the first against the wall when the religious-Luddite anti-transhuman pogrom begins.)
He's joking about the secret part -- think "day job"