= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Patrick 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.
= 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 (91)
Thank you for pointing this out. I don't bother with politics, (I quit being interested a long time ago when I realized that nothing was being solved and no one was looking for solutions that would get to the root of the problem because they seemed to prefer squabbling) so I didn't know that.
I see now that it's something I really need to learn more about if I want to understand elitism better. And I do. Would you mind explaining more or, if you know of good reading materials, direct me?
On the political use, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_elite
I bring up the political connotations because I don't think Less Wrong is particularly snobbish or exclusionary, and I think there are more flattering reasons why someone might choose to label themselves as "elitist".
Personally, I think the word "elitist" is too politically charged and emotionally laden to be of much use. There are a few different questions that the word lumps in together, I outline them below and my opinion of them.
Question 1. Should this site be hostile towards new members? (No)
Question 2. Should this site praise intelligence and rationality? (Yes)
Question 3. What privileges should those regarded as particularly rational receive? (No formal privileges)
Question 4. How concerned should we be with trying to preserve the current culture? (Somewhat, but not to the extent of making people feel small)