wedrifid comments on Cult impressions of Less Wrong/Singularity Institute - Less Wrong

29 Post author: John_Maxwell_IV 15 March 2012 12:41AM

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

Comments (247)

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

Comment author: Grognor 15 March 2012 02:22:38AM *  46 points [-]

AAAAARRRGH! I am sick to death of this damned topic. It has been done to death.

I have become fully convinced that even bringing it up is actively harmful. It reminds me of a discussion on IRC, about how painstakingly and meticulously Eliezer idiot-proofed the sequences, and it didn't work because people still manage to be idiots about it. It's because of the Death Spirals and the Cult Attractor sequence that people bring the stupid "LW is a cult hur hur" meme, which would be great dramatic irony if you were reading a fictional version of the history of Less Wrong, since it's exactly what Eliezer was trying to combat by writing it. Does anyone else see this? Is anyone else bothered by:

Eliezer: Please, learn what turns good ideas into cults, and avoid it!
Barely-aware public: Huh, wah? Cults? Cults! Less Wrong is a cult!

&

Eliezer: Do not worship a hero! Do not trust!
Rationalwiki et al: LW is a personality cult around Eliezer because of so-and-so.

Really, am I the only one seeing the problem with this?

People thinking about this topic just seem to instantaneously fail basic sanity checks. I find it hard to believe that people even know what they're saying when they parrot out "LW looks kinda culty to me" or whatever. It's like people only want to convey pure connotation. Remember sneaking in connotations, and how you're not supposed to do that? How about, instead of saying "LW is a cult", "LW is bad for its members"? This is an actual message, one that speaks negatively of LW but contains more information than negative affective valence. Speaking of which, one of the primary indicators of culthood is being unresponsive or dismissal of criticism. People regularly accuse LW of this, which is outright batshit. XiXiDu regularly posts SIAI criticism, and it always gets upvoted, no matter how wrong. Not to mention all the other posts (more) disagreeing with claims in what are usually called the Sequences, all highly upvoted by Less Wrong members.

The more people at Less Wrong naively wax speculatively on how the community appears from the outside, throwing around vague negative-affective-valence words and phrases like "cult" and "telling people exactly how they should be", the worse this community will be perceived, and the worse this community will be. I reiterate: I am sick to death of people playing color politics on "whether LW is a cult" without doing any of making the discussion precise and explicit rather than vague and implicit, taking into account that dissent is not only tolerated but encouraged here, remembering that their brains instantly mark "cult" as being associated to wherever it's seen, and any of a million other factors. The "million other factors" is, I admit, a poor excuse, but I am out of breath and emotionally exhausted; forgive the laziness.

Everything that should have needed to be said about this has been said in the Cult Attractor sequence, and, from the Less Wrong wiki FAQ:

We have a general community policy of not pretending to be open-minded on long-settled issues for the sake of not offending people. If we spent our time debating the basics, we would never get to the advanced stuff at all. Yes, some of the results that fall out of these basics sound weird if you haven't seen the reasoning behind them, but there's nothing in the laws of physics that prevents reality from sounding weird.

Talking about this all the time makes it worse, and worse every time someone talks about it.

What the bleeding fuck.

Comment author: wedrifid 15 March 2012 03:52:19AM 13 points [-]

AAAAARRRGH! I am sick to death of this damned topic.

It looks a bit better if you consider the generalization in the intro to be mere padding around a post that is really about several specific changes that need to be made to the landing pages.

Comment author: John_Maxwell_IV 15 March 2012 11:46:50PM 3 points [-]

Unfortunately, Grognor reverts me every time I try to make those changes... Bystanders, please weigh in on this topic here.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 16 March 2012 12:10:26AM *  3 points [-]

I didn't like your alternative for the "Many of us believe" line either, even though I don't like that line (it was what I came up with to improve on Luke's original text). To give the context: the current About page introduces twelve virtues with:

Many of us believe in the importance of developing qualities described in "Twelve Virtues of Rationality":

John's edit was to change it to:

For a brief summary of how to be rational, read the somewhat stylized "Twelve Virtues of Rationality":

P.S. I no longer supervise the edits to the wiki, but someone should...

Comment author: John_Maxwell_IV 16 March 2012 12:56:30AM *  0 points [-]

He didn't like my other three attempts at changes either... I could come up with 10 different ways of writing that sentence, but I'd rather let him make some suggestions.

Comment author: wedrifid 16 March 2012 02:51:29AM 3 points [-]

He didn't like my other three attempts at changes either... I could come up with 10 different ways of writing that sentence, but I'd rather let him make some suggestions.

If you made the suggestions here and received public support for one of them it wouldn't matter much what Grognor thought.

Comment author: John_Maxwell_IV 16 March 2012 03:01:41AM 0 points [-]

Why don't you make a suggestion?

Comment author: wedrifid 16 March 2012 03:04:48AM *  3 points [-]

*cough* Mine is 'delete the sentence entirely'. I never really liked that virtues page anyway!

Comment author: John_Maxwell_IV 16 March 2012 03:06:17AM 2 points [-]

Sounds like a great idea.

Comment author: lessdazed 20 March 2012 07:50:08PM 1 point [-]

I entirely agree with this.

Comment author: John_Maxwell_IV 17 March 2012 05:52:39AM 1 point [-]

To be clear, you are in favor of leaving the virtues off of the about page, correct?

Comment author: wedrifid 17 March 2012 06:01:03AM 1 point [-]

For what it is worth, yes.

Comment author: wedrifid 16 March 2012 02:49:33AM -1 points [-]

That change is less bad than the original but it is sometimes better to hold off on changes that may reduce the impetus for further improvement without quite satisfying the need.

Comment author: John_Maxwell_IV 16 March 2012 03:00:57AM 0 points [-]

To be honest, I don't have much energy left to fight this. I'd like to rethink the entire page, but if I have to fight tooth and nail for every sentence I won't.

Comment author: wedrifid 16 March 2012 02:49:46AM 0 points [-]

Who on earth is Grognor?

Comment author: Grognor 16 March 2012 05:46:19AM 5 points [-]
Comment author: Nisan 16 March 2012 05:27:49AM *  0 points [-]

In. Who in earth.

Comment author: wedrifid 16 March 2012 07:51:26AM 1 point [-]

In. Who in earth.

Is this a jest about Grognor sounding like the name of a dwarf or a mythical beast of the depths?

Comment author: Nisan 16 March 2012 03:42:33PM 2 points [-]

I'm afraid so.