Bugmaster 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.

Comment author: Bugmaster 15 March 2012 08:33:10PM 14 points [-]

Did anyone reading this initially get the impression that Less Wrong was cultish when they first discovered it?

What do you mean, "initially" ? I am still getting that impression ! For example, just count the number of times Eliezer (who appears to only have a single name, like Prince or Jesus) is mentioned in the other comments on this post. And he's usually mentioned in the context of, "As Eliezer says...", as though the mere fact that it is Eliezer who says these things was enough.

The obvious counter-argument to the above is, "I like the things Eliezer says because they make sense, not because I worship him personally", but... well... that's what one would expect a cultist to say, no ?

Less Wrongers also seem to have their own vocabulary ("taboo that term or risk becoming mind-killed, which would be un-Bayesian"). We spend a lot of time worrying about doomsday events that most people would consider science-fictional (at best). We also cultivate a vaguely menacing air of superiority, as we talk about uplifting the ignorant masses by spreading our doctrine of rationality. As far as warning signs go, we've got it covered...

Comment author: epicureanideal 16 March 2012 02:41:45AM 9 points [-]

Specialized terminology is really irritating to me personally, and off-putting to most new visitors I would think. If you talk to any Objectivists or other cliques with their own internal vocabulary, it can be very bothersome. It also creates a sense that the group is insulated from the rest of the world, which adds to the perception of cultishness.

Comment author: [deleted] 15 March 2012 08:41:58PM 7 points [-]

We also cultivate a vaguely menacing air of superiority, as we talk about uplifting the ignorant masses by spreading our doctrine of rationality

I think the phrase 'raising the sanity waterline' is a problem. As is the vaguely religious language, like 'litany of Tarski'. I looked up the definiton of 'litany' to make sure I was picking up on a religious denotation and not a religious connotation, and here's what I got:

A series of petitions for use in church services, usually recited by the clergy and responded to in a recurring formula by the people.

Not a great word, I think. Also 'Bayesian Conspiracy.' There's no conspiracy, and there shouldn't be.

Comment author: Bugmaster 15 March 2012 08:57:01PM 8 points [-]

Agreed. I realize that the words like "litany" and "conspiracy" are used semi-ironically, but a newcomer to the site might not.

Comment author: William_Quixote 07 September 2012 03:16:31AM 2 points [-]

This wording may lose a few people, but it probably helps for many people as well. The core subject matter of rationality could very easily be dull or dry or "academic". The tounge-in-cheek and occasionally outright goofy humor makes the sequences a lot more fun to read.

The tone may have costs, but not being funny has costs too. If you think back to college, more professors have students tune out by being boring than by being esoteric.

Comment author: Jiro 20 May 2014 05:35:28PM *  1 point [-]

(Responding to old post.)

One problem with such ironic usage is that people tend to joke about things that cause themselves stress, and that includes uncomfortable truths or things that are getting too close to the truth. It's why it actually makes sense to detain people making bomb jokes in airports. So just because the words are used ironically doesn't mean they can't reasonably be taken as signs of a cult--even by people who recognize that they are being used ironically.

(Although this is somewhat mitigated by the fact that many cults won't allow jokes about themselves at all.)

Comment author: Eneasz 16 March 2012 10:12:46PM 0 points [-]

You'd have to be new to the entire internet to think those are being used seriously. And if you're THAT new, there's really very little that can be done to prevent misunderstanding no matter where you first land.

On top of that, it's extremely unlikely someone very new to the internet would start their journey at LessWrong

Comment author: Martin-2 21 October 2012 07:33:28AM 0 points [-]

Eliezer (who appears to only have a single name, like Prince or Jesus)

Mr. Jesus H. Christ is a bad example. Also there's this.