David_Gerard comments on Minicamps on Rationality and Awesomeness: May 11-13, June 22-24, and July 21-28 - Less Wrong

24 Post author: AnnaSalamon 29 March 2012 08:48PM

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

Comments (239)

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

Comment author: bogus 30 March 2012 08:22:57AM *  3 points [-]

I can see why you would consider what you call "mysticism", or metaphysical belief systems, a warning sign. However, the use of mystical text forms, which is what I was referring to in my comment, is quite unrelated to this kind of metaphysical and cosmological rigidity. Compare, say, Christian fundamentalists versus Quakers or Unitarian Universalists, or Islamic Wahabis and Qutbis versus Sufis: the most doctrinal and memetically dangerous groups make only sparing use of mystical practices, or forbid them outright.

Atheists and agnostics are obviously a more challenging case, but it appears that at least some neopagans comfortably identify as such, using their supposed metaphysical beliefs as functionally useful aliefs, to be invoked through a ritual whenever the psychical effects of such rituals are desired. There is in fact an account of just such a ritual practice on LW itself involving the Winter Solstice, which is often celebrated as a festival by neopagan groups. It's hard to describe that account as anything other than a mystical ritual aiming to infuence the participants in very specific ways and induce a desirable stance of mind among them. In fact, that particular practice may be regarded as extremely foolish and memetically dangerous (because it involves a fairly blatant kind of happy-death-spiral) in a way that other mystical practices are not. I now see that post as a cautionary tale about the dangers of self-mindhacking, but that does not justify its wholesale rejection, particularly in an instructional context where long-term change is in fact desired.

Comment author: David_Gerard 30 March 2012 10:48:46AM *  3 points [-]

This does sound plausible:

  1. that the people who decompartmentalise crazy and do crazy stuff - fundies, cultists, fundie cultists - have a strong aversion to ambiguity, subtlety, irony;
  2. that groups with weird ideas who are not averse to ambiguity, subtlety or irony are less likely to do crazy stuff.

The first I think is obvious, the second as a positive result would be somewhat surprising and worthy of investigation.

I also suspect that a lot of romantic objection to rationality and science is that they see science as an example of group 1 holding that anything that can't be measured doesn't exist and throwing away important detail.

I wonder how we would meaningfully gather numbers on such things.