Viliam_Bur 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.

Article Navigation

Sort By: Best

Show:

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 15 March 2012 01:20:40PM 12 points [-]

Defending oneself from the cult accusation just makes it worse. Did you write a long excuse why you are not a cult? Well, that's exactly what a cult would do, isn't it?

To be accused is to be convicted, because the allegation is unfalsifiable.

Trying to explain something is drawing more attention to the topic, from which people will notice only the keywords. The more complex explanation you make, especially if it requires reading some of your articles, the worse it gets.

The best way to win is to avoid the topic.

Unfortunately, someone else can bring this topic and be persistent enough to make it visible. (Did it really happen on a sufficient scale, or are we just creating it by our own imagination?) Then, the best way is to make some short (not necessarily rational, but cached-thought convincing) answer and then avoid the topic. For example: "So, what exactly is that evil thing people on LW did? Downvote someone's forum post? Seriously, guys, you need to get some life."

And now, everybody stop worrying and get some life. ;-)

It could also help to make the site seem a bit less serious. For example put more emphasis on the instrumental rationality on the front page. People discussing best diet habits don't seem like a doomsday cult, right?

The Sequences could be recommended somewhat differently, for example: "In this forum we sometimes discuss some complicated topics. To make the discussion more efficient and avoid endlessly repeating the same arguments about statistics, evolution, quantum mechanics, et cetera, it is recommended to read the Sequences." Not like 'you have to do this', but rather like 'read the FAQ, please'. Also in discussion, instead of "read the Sequences" it is better to recommend one specific sequence, or one article.

Relax, be friendly. But don't hesitate to downvote a stupid post, even if the downvotee threatens to accuse you of whatever.

Comment author: roystgnr 15 March 2012 05:12:07PM 9 points [-]

People discussing best diet habits don't seem like a doomsday cult, right?

I'm having trouble thinking up examples of cults, real or fictional, that don't take an interest in what their members eat and drink.

Comment author: epicureanideal 16 March 2012 02:34:55AM 3 points [-]

I don't think the best way to win is to avoid the topic. A healthy discussion of false impressions and how to correct them, or other failings a group may have, is a good indication to me of a healthy community. This post for example caused my impression of LW to increase somewhat, but some of the responses to it have caused my impression to decrease below its original level.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 16 March 2012 08:44:05AM * 4 points [-]

Then let's discuss "false impressions" or even better "impressions" in general, not focusing on cultishness, which even cannot be defined (because there are so many different kind of cults). If we focus on making things right, we do not have to discuss hundred ways they could go wrong.

What is our community (trying to be) like?

Friendly. In more senses of the word: we speak about ethics, we are trying to make a nice community, we try to help each other become stronger and win.

Rational. Instead of superstition and gossip, we discuss how and why things really happen. Instead of happy death spirals, we learn about the world around us.

Professional. By that I do not mean that everyone here is an AI expert, but that the things we do and value here (studying, politeness, exactness, science) are things that for most people correlate positively with their jobs, rather than free time. Even when we have fun, it's adult people having fun.

So where exactly in the space of human organizations do we belong? Which of the cached-thoughts can be best applied to us? People will always try to fit us to some existing model (for example: cult), so why not choose this model rationally? I am not sure, but "educational NGO" sounds close. Science, raising the sanity waterline, et cetera. By seeming as something well-known, we become less suspicious, more normal.

Comment author: MugaSofer 10 January 2013 12:15:46PM 1 point [-]

The Sequences could be recommended somewhat differently, for example: "In this forum we sometimes discuss some complicated topics. To make the discussion more efficient and avoid endlessly repeating the same arguments about statistics, evolution, quantum mechanics, et cetera, it is recommended to read the Sequences." Not like 'you have to do this', but rather like 'read the FAQ, please'. Also in discussion, instead of "read the Sequences" it is better to recommend one specific sequence, or one article.

This.

Seriously, we need to start doing all the stuff recommended here, but this is perhaps the simplest and most immediate. Someone go do it.

Comment author: Peterdjones comment score below threshold [+] (14 children)

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 10 January 2013 12:34:31AM 7 points [-]

Be the opposite of a religion.

Reversed stupidity is not intelligence.

Comment author: Peterdjones comment score below threshold [+] (4 children)

Comment author: wedrifid 10 January 2013 09:39:52AM 4 points [-]

Be the opposite of a religion.

The opposite of most sorts of stupid is still stupid. Particularly most things that are functional enough to proliferate themselves successfully.

Don't have a leader

If you meant "Have more than one leader" you'd be on to something. That isn't what you meant though.

Don''t have a gospel

There is a difference between the connotations you are going with for 'gospel' and what amounts to a textbook that most people haven't read anyway.

Don't have a dogma

I sometimes wish people would submit to reference to rudimentary references to rational, logical, decision theoretic or scientific concepts as if they were dogma. That is far from what I observe.

Don't have quasi-religious "meetups"

Socialize in person with rudimentary organisation? Oh the horror!

Don't have quasi-religious rituals (!)

Actually, I don't disagree at all on this one. Or at least I'd prefer that anyone who was into that kind of thing did it without it being affiliated with lesswrong in any way except partial membership overlap.

Don't have an eschatology

Are you complaining (or shaming with labels the observation) that an economist and an AI researcher attempted to use their respective expertise to make predictions about the future?

Don't have a God.

Don't. Working on it...

WELCOME CRITIICISM AND DISSENT

Most upvoted post. Welcome competent, sane or useful criticism. Don't give nonsense a free pass just because it is 'dissent'.

Comment author: Peterdjones comment score below threshold [+] (4 children)

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 10 January 2013 01:06:47PM -1 points [-]

Is this nonsense ?

It contains five misspellings in a single paragraph: "utimately" "canot" "statees" "hvae" "ontoogical" which might themselves be enough for a downvote, regardless of content.

As for the is-ought problem, if we accept that "ought" is just a matter of calculations in our brain returning an output (and reject that it's a matter of e.g. our brain receiving supernatural instruction from some non-physical soul), then the "ought" is describable in terms of the world-that-is, because every algorithm in our brain is describable in terms of the world-that-is.

It's not a matter of "cramming" an entire world-state into your brain -- any approximation that your brain is making, including any self-identified deficiency in the ability to make a moral evaluation in any particular situation, are also encoded in your brain -- your current brain, not some hypothetical superbrain.

Comment author: Peterdjones 10 January 2013 01:09:45PM * 0 points [-]

As for the is-ought problem, if we accept that "ought" is just a matter of calculations in our brain returning an output

But we shouldnt accept that, because we can miscalculate an "ought" or antyhing else. The is-ought problem is the problem of correctly inferring an ought from a tractable amount of "is's".

(and reject that it's a matter of e.g. our brain receiving supernatural instruction from some non-physical soul), then the "ought" is describable in terms of the world-that-is, because every algorithm in our brain is describable in terms of the world-that-is.

It perhaps might be one day given sufficiently advanced brain scanning, but we don't have that now, so we still have an is-ought gap.

It's not a matter of "cramming" an entire world-state into your brain -- any approximation that your brain is making, including any self-identified deficiency in the ability to make a moral evaluation in any particular situation, are also encoded in your brain -- your current brain, not some hypothetical superbrain.

The is-ought problem is epistemic. Being told that I have an epistemically inaccessible black box in my head that calculates oughts still doesn't lead to a situation where oughts can be consciously undestood as correct entailments of is's.

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 10 January 2013 01:19:46PM 0 points [-]

because we can miscalculate an "ought" or anything else.

One way to miscalculate an "ought" is the same way that we can miscalculate an "is" -- e.g. lack of information, erroneous knowledge, false understanding of how to weigh data, etc.

And also, because people aren't perfectly self-aware, we can mistake mere habits or strongly-held preferences to be the outputs of our moral algorithm -- same way that e.g. a synaesthete might perceive the number 8 to be colored blue, even though there's no "blue" light frequency striking the optical nerve. But that sort of thing doesn't seem as a very deep philosophical problem to me.

Comment author: Peterdjones 10 January 2013 01:30:05PM -1 points [-]

We can correct miscalculations where we have an conscious epistemic grasp of how the calculation should work. If morality is a neural black box, we have no such grasp. Such a neural black box cannot be used to plug the is-ought gap, because it does not distinguish correct calculations from miscalculations.

Comment author: MugaSofer comment score below threshold [+] (1 child)

Comment author: Peterdjones 10 January 2013 12:01:45PM * 0 points [-]

Leaders are useful.

Leaders cause people to lapse into thinking "The Guru has an answer, even if I don't understand it". This is aready happening in LW.

I'm not really sure how the sequences map onto the Christian Gospel

People say "The answer is in the Sequencess" without bothering to check that it is.

,Assuming we don't excommunicate people for disagreeing it (politely), I'm not sure why not. I mean, we mostly agree that there's no God, for example; rationality should, presumably, move us closer to the correct position, and if most of us agree that we've probably found it, why shouldn't we assume members agree unless they indicate otherwise?

Rationalists should think and argue. However LWers just say "this is wrong" and downvote.

Because meeting people with similar interests and goals is only done via religion.

Other ratioanlists manage withoiut them. LWers aren't aware of how religious they seem.

Because any idea that predicts the end of the world must be discarded a priori?

Because it fools people into thinking they are Saving the World This sense of self-importance is yet another mind killer. Instead of examining ideas dispassionaely,a s they should, they develop a mentality of "No, don't take my important world-saving role away from me! I cannot tolerate any criticism of these ideas, because then I will go back to being an ordinary person".

Because any idea you place in the reference class "god" must be discarded a priori?

See above. Leads to over-estimation of individual importance, and therefore emotional investment, and therefore mind-killing.

An excellent suggestion! In theory, we already do (we could probably do better on this.)

I'll say

Trolling, however, is not generally considered part of that.

"Trolling" is the blind dogmatist's term for reasoned criticism.

I> 'm not even going to bother linking to the appropriate truism, but reversed stupidity etc.

Stupidity is stupidity, too.

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

Article Navigation

Comments (247)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (247)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login