= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
RichardKennaway comments on How can we get more and better LW contrarians? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (328)
I don't see a problem with driving "contrarians" away. That is what we should be doing.
To be a "contrarian" is to have written a bottom line already: disagree with everything everyone else agrees with.
To be a "contrarian" among smart people is to adopt reversed intelligence as a method of intelligence.
To be a "contrarian" among stupid people is, like American football, something that you have to be smart enough to do but stupid enough to think worth doing.
To be a "contrarian" is to limit oneself to writing against. I am not interested in what anyone is against until I have seen what they are for.
To be a "contrarian" is the safe and easy path. It is easy, because you can find good arguments against everything, as nothing is perfect. It is safe, for you can take agreement and disagreement alike as confirmation. Like most safe and easy paths, nothing is achieved along it.
To style oneself a "contrarian" is a giant red warning light that the person has nothing useful to say. That rule has not failed me yet.
Yes, being a "contrarian" is irrational for the individual, but may be good for the group. I wouldn't try to turn someone into a "contrarian" for my own benefits, but I don't feel qualms about making better use of people who already are.
I think there's a difference between "contrarian about X" and "contrarian". The former has (hopefully) looked at the evidence around X and come to a position on X that differs from the mainstream. The latter values being different over being right.
I think the first sort can be valuable, and shouldn't be driven away.
Wei Dai's first sentence only talks about the second sort, and I wouldn't call someone who has come to a position on X that differs from the mainstream a "contrarian about X". If they call themselves that, then instead of simply being able to present their arguments, they have tied their identity to being in opposition, and the whole downward spiral I described comes into play.
There's no problem with identifying with arguments and wanting to defend certain positions if you are open to arguments and evidence against your position. It's actually convenient to do so for the purposes of discussion and advocacy.
Most people here are probably "transhumanists", which connects their beliefs to their identity, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't change their mind or alter their beliefs if they see evidence against transhumanism. Describing specific traits that apply to you and your positions shouldn't make you reluctant to change your positions, and also identifying with specific advocacy groups is probably inevitable.
I don't think you're really addressing what Wei Dai's original post is actually discussing. I think that it should be apparent that Wei Dai isn't advocating having more closeminded commenters, but is advocating a more diverse set of viewpoints and advocacies. You're dismissing the overall idea was trying to be reached at based on an interpretation of "contrarian" that doesn't make sense when viewed in the context of the advocacy statement within the original post. Even if you're right about what "contrarian" means, please mentally replace every instance of "contrarian" with "person advocating something unpopular", and that will make this discussion much more productive.
I agree that tying one's identity to opposition specifically is bad, though. That's political paralysis as a consequence of misguided cynicism. If you reject every position then you can advocate nothing. That's not just ineffective, it's a horrible way to live. Affirmation is good.
As far as I know Wei Dai is male.
I've met him in person, and this is the case.
I realized while writing the post that I didn't know his gender and proceeded to edit as fast as I could but you people still caught the mistake before I fixed it, I'm embarrassed. At least it's better to use "she" than "he" as my default assumption (balances against gendered language in favor of men, etc). Although on second thought it probably indicates that I associate civility with females which is stupid and unfair and can't be intentionally controlled by me anyways so it's not really worth lamenting.
But, sorry, Wei Dai, although it was just an accident and I doubt you'll care much.
It makes a difference that there are some Wei Dais that are female.
I probably wouldn't default to associating anti-consensus advocacy with female. That goes against a notorious (and as far as I know reasonably well founded) stereotype.
I was thinking and perceiving in terms of tone rather than in terms of advocacy statement.
Someone else mentioned somewhere that essentially Wei Dai is very good at disagreeing politely.
I sometimes argue in favor of positions I don't really believe (i.e., assign p<.5 to) if I think the probability is higher than general consensus and I suspect at least Will Newsome frequently does the same.
Yes, but it's often a hassle. You risk being accused of trolling, overconfidence, &c., and it's difficult to claim that such accusations don't have some tinge of truth.
I suspect it's not overall a very good habit and that I bring it to LessWrong mostly because it happens to work well in my personal rationality practice. On LessWrong it's probably better to put in a little extra work to find a way to go meta—don't support a side, but show clear not-introspectively-obvious reasons why someone could hold a belief that was to them introspectively obvious and thus difficult to explain. I generally like the anti-democracy LW commenters because they seem to have practiced this skill.
Contrarians get to pick and choose their battle grounds. All they have to do to be right is to seek out places where a lot of people are wrong.
This comment should have 99 upvotes and should be moved to "Main" as a separate article. Then we should link it whenever the same topic appears again.
Reversing group-think is like reversing stupidity, or like an underconfidence at group level. It can be done. It can be interesting. But I prefer reading rational people's best estimates of reality. And I prefer disagreement based on genuine experience and belief, not because someone has felt a duty to artificially maintain diversity.
If you disagree with whatever, for example many-worlds interpretation, say it. Say "I disagree because of X and Y". Or say "I disagree, because if feels wrong, and because many people disagree, including some experts in the field (which is a good Bayesian evidence)". That's all OK. But don't say or imply things like "we should attract more people who disagree with many-world interpretation, to keep our discussion balanced". That is manipulating evidence.
If anything, we should discuss wider range of topics. Then naturally we will attract people who agree with N-1 topics, and disagree with 1 topic; and they will say it, and we will know they mean it.