timtyler 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: JoshuaFox 15 March 2012 10:12:30AM *  24 points [-]

Eliezer addressed this in part with his "Death Spiral" essay, but there are some features to LW/SI that are strongly correlated with cultishness, other than the ones that Eliezer mentioned such as fanaticism and following the leader:

  • Having a house where core members live together.
  • Asking followers to completely adjust their thinking processes to include new essential concepts, terminologies, and so on to the lowest level of understanding reality.
  • Claiming that only if you carry out said mental adjustment can you really understand the most important parts of the organization's philosophy.
  • Asking for money for a charity, particularly one which does not quite have the conventional goals of a charity, and claiming that one should really be donating a much larger percentage of one's income than most people donate to charity.
  • Presenting an apocalyptic scenario including extreme bad and good possibilities, and claiming to be the best positioned to deal with it.
  • [Added] Demand you leave any (other) religion.

Sorry if this seems over-the-top. I support SI. These points have been mentioned, but has anyone suggested how to deal with them? Simply ignoring the problem does not seem to be the solution; nor does loudly denying the charges; nor changing one's approach just for appearances.

Comment author: timtyler 15 March 2012 11:25:32AM *  15 points [-]

Perhaps consider adding the high fraction of revenue that ultimately goes to paying staff wages to the list.

Oh yes, and fact that the leader wants to SAVE THE WORLD.

Comment author: Bongo 15 March 2012 10:00:32PM *  5 points [-]

fraction of revenue that ultimately goes to paying staff wages

About a third in 2009, the last year for which we have handy data.

Comment author: timtyler 16 March 2012 12:49:18AM *  5 points [-]

Practically all of it goes to them or their "associates" - by my reckoning. In 2009 some was burned on travel expenses and accomodation, some was invested - and some was stolen.

Who was actually helped? Countless billions in the distant future - supposedly.

Comment author: dbaupp 16 March 2012 02:50:19AM *  5 points [-]

all of it goes to them or their "associates"

What else should it go to? (Under the assumption that SI's goals are positive.)

As Larks said above, they are doing thought work: they are not trying to ship vast quantities of food or medical supplies. The product of SI is the output from their researchers, the only way to get more output is to employ more people (modulo improving the output of the current researchers, but that is limited).

Comment author: timtyler 16 March 2012 11:19:01AM *  7 points [-]

So, to recap, this is a proposed part of a list of ways in which the SIAI resembles a cult. It redistribtutes economic resources from the "rank and file" members up the internal heirarchy without much expenditure on outsiders - just like many cults do.

Comment author: dbaupp 16 March 2012 01:12:02PM *  4 points [-]

(Eh. Yes, I think I lost track of that a bit.)

Keeping that in mind: SI has a problem because acting to avoid appearing to exist to give money to the upper ranks means that they can't pay their researchers. There are three broad classes of solutions to this (that I can see):

  • Give staff little to no compensation for their work
  • Use tricky tactics to try to conceal how much money goes to the staff
  • Try to explain to everyone why such a large proportion of the money goes to the staff

All of those seem suboptimal.

Comment author: epicureanideal 16 March 2012 02:38:33AM *  5 points [-]

Why was this downvoted instead of responded to? Downvoting people who are simply stating negative impressions of the group doesn't improve impressions of the group.

Comment author: epicureanideal 16 March 2012 02:37:34AM 3 points [-]

As I've discussed with several LWers in person, including some staff and visiting fellows, one of the things I disliked about LW/SIAI was that so much of the resources of the organization go to pay the staff. They seemingly wouldn't even consider proposals to spend a few hundred dollars on other things because they claimed it was "too expensive".

Comment author: JoshuaFox 15 March 2012 12:11:18PM *  3 points [-]

Most organizations spend most of their money on staff. What else could you do with it? Paying fellowships for "external staff" is a possibility. But in general, good people are exactly what you need.

Comment author: timtyler 15 March 2012 12:25:57PM *  2 points [-]

Often goods or needy beneficiaries are also involved. Charity actions are sometimes classified into:

  • Program Expenses
  • Administrative Expenses
  • Fundraising Expenses

This can be used as a heuristic for identifying good charities.

Not enough in category 1 and too much in categories 2 and 3 is often a bad sign.

Comment author: Larks 16 March 2012 01:07:52AM *  8 points [-]

But they're not buying malaria nets, they're doing thought-work. Do you expect to see an invoice for TDT?

Quite appart from the standard complaint about how awful a metric that is.

Comment author: epicureanideal 16 March 2012 02:40:05AM *  0 points [-]

And yet there are plenty of things that don't cost much money that they could be doing right now, that I have previously mentioned to SIAI staff and will not repeat (edit: in detail) because it might interfere with my own similar efforts in the near future.

Basically I'm referring to public outreach, bringing in more members of the academic community, making people aware that LW even exists (I wasn't except when I randomly ran into a few LWers in person), etc.

What's the reason for downvoting this? Please comment.