Vladimir_Nesov comments on Elitism isn't necessary for refining rationality. - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (91)
Rationalist taboo style explanation of how my perceptions of "elitism" developed:
I started out in life with disadvantages that I had to overcome. I am also gifted, but didn't know that until my mid twenties. I lived in a rich, privileged town and there were a majority of rich, privileged children in my school. Because I was disadvantaged, I never made friends with privileged children or teens. They were wearing Gap while I was wearing resale shop finds. If they ever used the word "elite" to describe themselves, I didn't know it. We occasionally annoyed each other - that was all the interaction that we had. Aside from my objection to their focus on status signaling (to me, there were obviously more important things to spend money on like starvation), because I was surrounded by them, I thought that their lifestyle was the way things were supposed to be, but that I was unlucky and didn't get to have that. These were not the "elitists" to me.
I met other gifted and disadvantaged people after school. These were my friends. This pattern of interacting mostly with the disadvantaged variety of gifted people continued until more recently. There are a variety of reasons for this. For instance: it took me years of excruciating effort to learn to speak and write in a way that's polished enough that it prevents privileged gifted people from assuming that I'm stupid because I have dyslexia.
A lot of the gifted and disadvantaged people I met felt strongly that they did not want to see themselves as gifted - it would make them feel arrogant. Some of them even deny that intellectual differences exist. They were not the "elitists" to me.
I had occasionally met an abusive disadvantaged gifted person who insulted people who weren't as intelligent, made assumptions about them (prejudice), and reasoned in ways that were based on that prejudice. Those were the people I thought were the "elitists".
But they are uncommon in my experience. I don't know of them forming any big groups so I don't see them as a big threat. My perspective is more like "this is the sort of intellectual you don't want to be confused for." Since I hadn't interacted much with advantaged people, I had no idea that they'd ever want to call themselves "elitists". Wouldn't that cause people to confuse them with these abusive intellectuals? I figured they would never want that.
Now, I realize that there are large groups of people out there made up of advantaged / gifted people that call themselves "elite" and that I don't understand them very well. I want to understand them better. If you guys feel inclined, please help me get a better understanding of this group so I can update.
When a concept is used, it draws attention to its connotations, the way people associate them with it. The role of a concept in an argument is to bring forth relevant inferences. A misleading concept might suggest incorrect or unintended conclusions, as is the case when it doesn't describe the situation very well or when you are relying on nonstandard connotations not shared by other people.
To taboo a concept is to screen off implicit reliance on its ability to activate connotations in an argument, instead naming them and motivating their relevance explicitly. If the argument is valid, it will go through in this more explicit form as well (if it doesn't, there might be an actual problem with the argument). The main focus of this procedure are particular arguments, not the concept that was causing trouble. So it is the arguments that you are trying to make that should be clarified, communicated in a way that doesn't rely on your understanding of the concept, while the use of the concept itself in communication and persuasion should be avoided.
I appear to be doing it wrong. Thank you Vladimir. The wiki on rationalist taboo is pretty short. Is there an article somewhere with good instructions for playing rationalist taboo?
As I recommended before, read the sequence on words and some of Yvain's posts (Diseased Thinking, Studies on Excuses, Schelling Fences, Worst Argument in the World). My comment works as a summary, if you follow what it's describing (which is where all those posts might help).
Okay thank you. I've read more random sequences than I can count and Worst Argument in the World and I'm systematically working my way through the major sequences right now. I will check these other ones out, too.
Wait, I assume you mean "A Human's Guide to Words" when you say "sequence of words"?
Ironic place to have this confusion, isn't it. ;)
(Yes, should be "sequence on words", sorry, fixed.)