private_messaging comments on Ritual Report 2012: Life, Death, Light, Darkness, and Love. - Less Wrong

20 Post author: Raemon 23 December 2012 06:56PM

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

Comments (206)

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

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 24 December 2012 05:55:10AM *  18 points [-]

Whyyyyyyyy????

Why not just get together and hang out and... I don't know. Play party games? Talk? Watch movies? Why a ritual?

Because humans experience an emotion of "sacredness" (in scare quotes because although the feeling is commonly associated with religion, it doesn't need to be), which many people think is fantastic. This blogger puts it pretty well:

Haidt, an atheist Jew, is not suggesting a particular path to that which is Divine. He is certainly not concluding, for instance, that religion is the only path to that which is divine. Rather, he is emphasizing that we all have a sense of what is sacred to us, what is “divine,” and we justify it in various ways. He cites Mircea Eliade’s The Sacred and the Profane, agreeing with Eliade that “sacredness is so irrepressible that it intrudes repeatedly into the modern profane world in the form of “crypto-religious” behavior.” He specifically cites Eliade’s conclusion that even a person who is committed to a “profane existence” has

privileged places, qualitatively different from all others–a man’s birthplace, or the scenes of his first love, or certain places in the first foreign city he visited in his youth. Even for the most frankly nonreligious man, all these places still retain an exceptional, a unique quality; they are the “holy places” of his private universe, as if it were in such spots that he had received the revelation of a reality other than that in which he participates through his ordinary daily life.

(Page 193). For Haidt, this passage perfectly characterized his own sense of “feeble spirituality,” one which was limited to “places, books, people and events that have given me moments of uplift and enlightenment. Even atheists have intimations of sacredness, particularly when in love or in nature. We just don’t infer that God caused those feelings.”

Haidt’s writing caused me to consciously realize that I too hold various things to be sacred, even though I hadn’t before consciously labeled them with the word “sacred.” Here are some of the things I would put in this category:

  • Holding the hand of either of my daughters while we walk.
  • Having an honest and intense conversation in a quiet place.
  • Being alone in a quiet and beautiful place, including places of natural beauty. Consider further that even atheists can enjoy churches.
  • Beating back the temptation of the confirmation bias through self-critical thinking, thus recognizing that one was previously wrong about something important.
  • Being part of a sustained group endeavor to lessen real world human suffering.
  • Being in the presence of another person who is cheerfully working hard for the benefit of others.
  • Viewing certain photographs representing transitions in my life.
  • Reveling in the Milky Way stretching all the way across the sky.
  • Catching up with a good friend after many years apart.
  • Noticing the kind eyes of a good friend while we visit.
  • Rediscovering the intense beauty of something I had been taking for granted.
  • Creating high-quality art or music, or enjoying high-quality art created by others.
  • Resisting the temptation to edify one’s self above others.
  • Being consciously aware of places that were important to me, such as the house where grew up, or the location of my high school (even though it is now a shopping center).
  • Experiencing the natural healing powers of one’s own body after an illness or injury.
  • Holding my wife at the end of a day or the beginning of a new day.

I agree with Haidt that these sorts of experiences have a certain character to them that seems to “transcend” ordinary daily activities. It seems equally true that damaging any of these things, ridiculing them or preventing them would trigger a deep mourning, and even a sense of disgust, and that this emotion would go well beyond any sense of pragmatic loss.

Perhaps, then, the existence of the sense of the Sacred is something on which believers and nonbelievers can agree. Really, we should add experience of the sacred to that long list of things that believers and non-believers have in common. Perhaps we can learn to humbly allow each other to celebrate these moments in his or her own way. If only we could allow each other the freedom to experience such things without casting arrogant judgment, without acting like know-it-all experts of the ineffable. Without succumbing to the temptation to use others’ experiences of such elevated emotional experiences as the springboard to start arguments.

Your reaction seems to be "this ritual stuff smacks of religion, and I don't want to get involved with any of that!". My response would be, roughly, "Humans have this awesome in-built feeling that makes things feel beautiful and great and fantastic and helps us give moments of respite in the middle of all or other worries, and religion has made this land-grab and laid unfair claim on the whole experience. Well, why the hell should we put up with that? Why should the whole thing be labelled 'religious', when it's a basic emotion of human beings that doesn't require being religious in the first place? Religion has done a lot of harm already, and if we begin cutting off valuable and important parts of ourselves simply because we feel those parts are associated with an enemy tribe, we're voluntarily letting religion do more damage. I say we stop that shit right here."

Comment deleted 30 December 2012 09:23:07AM *  [-]
Comment author: MixedNuts 30 December 2012 12:22:26PM 7 points [-]

You're saying that enabling an extremely common feature of human brains through words, music, aesthetically pleasing stimuli and social interaction is making people less sane? To formalize the argument beyond your horrified shriek and my incredulous stare, what's the problem with religion?

  • It's a superstimulus, and all superstimuli are dangerous? It might be fair to say it's one - religion existed in the ancestral environment, but modern forms are likely optimized beyond that. But superstimuli are everywhere - chocolate and Photoshopped models and FarmVille. Are you generally this panicked about them, and if so why aren't you a Ludddite?

  • It strongly reinforces ingroup cohesion. Humans need social bonding, but maybe you're complaining that religion does that too quickly and with too little trust testing? Are you this freaked out about sports, politics, or fandoms? Also note that these are yearly rituals, not regular congregations.

  • It puts people in a more suggestible state. Like... just about everything, according to priming research. At least not more than belonging to a group which will downvote you and call you stupid on the Internet for unpopular beliefs.

  • No, it seriously puts people in a more suggestible state - it's better modeled as a drug that as a behavior. Yes, and there's another bonding behavior that delivers a lot of oxytocin and endorphins, namely sex. This is a good reason to avoid sex if you're a secret agent man who might let the wrong word slip, but usually dwarfed by the benefits. As mind-altering behaviors go, meditation is freakier - and it turns out to be healthy.

  • It has a tradition of being used as a vehicle for stupid ideas and violence. We could just, y'know, not do that, but there are also solutions, like Discordianism, which is designed to be impossible to coherently take seriously enough to be a fanatic.

There is an enormously huge space of cool things the atheists do, which fill them with wonder, that aren't this

Name three? Note that aesthetic appreciation is only a subcomponent of religious wonder, and that "holy mackerel this is awesome" is a different type.

Comment author: drethelin 30 December 2012 08:52:18PM 0 points [-]

Claim to not be a cult

Scumbag Lesswrong

start stealing ideas from cults.

Comment author: quiet 30 December 2012 10:43:38PM *  9 points [-]

I've lurked on LW for a long time and can shrug off the second-hand embarrassment without fail, but I'll be damned if I ever link anyone I know to this web site. This undercurrent of LW does more damage than anything Roko ever posted.

I'm no stranger to ritual/awe/group bonding (Merzbow & MDMA: the reason for the season), but there is some hazy aesthetic line past which I cannot follow. Nor will I risk being associated with. Sorry.

If you enjoy this stuff, than more power to ya. Have a blast. Just keep in mind how many people are seriously turned off from LW because of it.

[in agreement with, rather than directed at, drethelin]

Comment author: Kawoomba 30 December 2012 10:52:56PM 6 points [-]

I - sadly but determinately - second that motion. A "Ritual Report" in Main ... because our community does not have enough novel ideas that are hard to swallow as is.

Comment author: Academian 30 December 2012 11:55:34PM *  4 points [-]

Thanks for sharing this, Quiet; I'm sad to say I agree with you. I think rationality as a movement can't afford to be associated with ritual. It's just too hard to believe that it's not a failure mode. I personally find Raemon's perspective inspiring and convincing. Raemon, it seems to me that you have a very sane perspective on the role of ritual in people's lives. And I'm all about trying to acknowledge and work with our own emotional needs, e.g. in this post. But I personally think openly associating with Ritual with a Capital R is just too sketchy looking for the community. It saddens me to have to worry about such alarm bells going off, but I think it's the reality.

Of course there are other easier-to-worry-about negative effects of ritual than simply appearances; what I'm saying is that, Raemon, even if you are able to avoid those failure modes --- and I have to say, to me, you seem very trustworthy in this regard --- I think strong ritual associations are worth avoiding for signaling alone.

Comment author: SaidAchmiz 31 December 2012 01:07:38AM 3 points [-]

I just want to say — lest Raemon, other ritual-type-event-organizers, or people who share their values and views on this subject, get the wrong idea — that we should distinguish between these two positions:

  • "Rituals make Less Wrong look like a cult, or otherwise make the LW community look sketchy/disreputable/creepy" (optional addendum: "... and because of this, I don't want to associate with LW")
  • "I don't like rituals, am personally creeped out by them, and wish LW communities wouldn't engage in them" (optional addendum: "... and because of this, I don't want to participate in LW communities")

I, personally, am not concerned about LW's image, or my image if I associate with LW, and I make no comment about the strategic implications (for e.g. CFAR) of LW communities engaging in rituals; I just want to head off any conclusion or assertion that the only reason anyone would object to rituals is a concern about appearances, reputation, or the like.

(This, I think, is a special case of "well, people don't like X because they don't understand X" — "no, I understand X just fine and I still don't like it". Relatedly: "We shouldn't do X because people might draw the wrong conclusions about us" — "Well, let's do X and just not tell anyone" — "Actually, I think we shouldn't do X for reasons that have nothing to do with other people's opinions of us for doing X!")

Comment author: drethelin 31 December 2012 07:21:04AM 0 points [-]

I second this. I think it's kind of bad for LW's image to be associated with cult-like stuff, but I don't think it matters that much. But it would be really bad for ME if LW became really about ritual.

Comment author: Kawoomba 31 December 2012 11:39:40AM *  1 point [-]

I don't think it matters that much

It really does; already there were some unfortunate occurrences when I tried to initiate new acolytes, ahem, I mean when prodding some friends across the inferential chasm.

(edit: Answered Raemon per PM)

Comment author: private_messaging 31 December 2012 07:50:27PM 1 point [-]

BTW, there's inferential distances, and there's fuzzy-inferential distances, the latter being rationalization distances past some length.

Comment author: drethelin 31 December 2012 03:53:36PM -1 points [-]

I'm saying I don't think it matters much if it scares away random people.

Comment author: Raemon 31 December 2012 03:52:23PM -1 points [-]

I would like to hear more about that.

Comment author: shminux 31 December 2012 12:21:14AM 1 point [-]

LWers are primates, too, so some of us need this pack bonding thing in a form of a ritual. I'm not one of those, but I can see how others can feel differently. And given that rituals, whether religious or civic, are pretty much standard and often spontaneous in most communities, I don't see how having a ritual for some subgroup would harm the High Ideals of Rationality. It even might make the participants appear more human, by counteracting the perception of "straw Volcan"ness.

Comment author: Academian 31 December 2012 12:28:48AM 6 points [-]

I'm not saying rationalists should avoid engaging in ritual like the plague; but I do a lot of promoting of CFAR and rationality to non-LW-readers, and I happen to know from experience that a post like this in Main sends bad vibes to a lot of people. Again, I think it's sad to have to worry so much about image, but I think it's a reality.

Comment author: shminux 31 December 2012 12:34:12AM 1 point [-]

Oh, I agree that the optics would be better if the post in question was in Discussion, not Main.

Comment author: quiet 31 December 2012 01:12:33AM 3 points [-]

And given that rituals, whether religious or civic, are pretty much standard and often spontaneous in most communities, I don't see how having a ritual for some subgroup would harm the High Ideals of Rationality.

Rationality Itself remains unphased by a backyard party blog meetup, that's for sure.

I think Academian's post on the role of narrative in self-image touches on the seemingly disjointed purpose of a Rationalist Ritual. We all have our unique approaches to rational thought - my own experience consists largely of the dissolving of narratives in search of actual cause & effect. Not all narratives are destructive (or even wrong), but my employment of rational thought has never included them. Constructing and reinforcing narratives is what ritual is all about. Subjectively, the two just don't click for me.

Using Less Wrong as a maypole to dance around seems.. goofy, at best. Lesser things have been rot13'd around here.

It even might make the participants appear more human, by counteracting the perception of "straw Volcan"ness.

If this is what it takes to signal that we have emotional lives, then fuck me running.

Comment author: V_V 30 December 2012 11:33:32PM 4 points [-]
Comment author: drethelin 30 December 2012 09:45:09PM 2 points [-]

Hey, at least cults made the trains run on time!

Comment deleted 30 December 2012 01:19:10PM *  [-]
Comment author: Morendil 30 December 2012 02:14:29PM 1 point [-]

This is so full of what you guys call "Fallacy of grey"

I'm not seeing it; none of the above appears to be saying "Some people think religion-inspired rituals are da bomb, other people think they are horrible, so the truth must be somewhere in between".

Your use of "you guys", now, that strikes me as... below the belt.

Comment author: MixedNuts 30 December 2012 07:10:12PM -2 points [-]

No, I'm not saying "Politics and religion both make you very loyal to untrustworthy groups, so they're exactly as bad as each other", I'm saying that politics is at least as bad as religion in this area, so that can't be the reason you dislike the latter. It would help a lot if you stated your reasons, since apparently all of my guesses are wrong.

Look, it makes people think less straight.

Citation needed. All groups built around an ideology make people think less straight, and some parts of religion make that worse, especially the cultural norm against criticizing religious ideas. Is there anything about making groups feel sacredness that makes it worse? Does solitary religious practice make people think less straight at all?

Also, are you Algernon-lawing the effects on religion on people who think exceptionally straight in the first place, or are you claiming that they always outweigh the benefits of religion against anxiety, unhappiness, discouragement, etc.?

When others look at your cult and see it's a cult and stay the hell away

I'm worried about turning into a cult, but not about looking more like a cult at constant actual cultishness. People not interested in investigating how conformist and closed-off we are can use the characteristics that are easy to eyeball, sure. Making the community less fun in order to making it grow faster in against the selfish interests of most members.

Yea, I was thinking of things like gathering together with telescopes and actually comprehending how fucking big is this place we are suspended in, which you apparently disqualify outright.

Something like that may qualify (I've never comprehended numbers greater than about twelve, let alone ten to the power thereof, so I wouldn't know). Does it make you feel connected to something greater (I think stargazing in general does that) and serene and loving (of everything) and loved (by nothing in particular)?

Some works of art also qualify, some of which aren't meant to be religious. But they seem to need additional religiousish behaviors to make you the right kind of rapt.

Comment author: SaidAchmiz 30 December 2012 08:35:41PM 2 points [-]

feel connected to something greater (I think stargazing in general does that) and serene and loving (of everything) and loved (by nothing in particular)

I am curious, are you suggesting (or do you think) that feeling this way, and experiences that make you feel this way, are a good thing?

Comment author: MixedNuts 30 December 2012 09:19:54PM 1 point [-]

That was just describing the emotion, but yes, I advocate it.

Pros: It feels several kinds of good. It improves mood afterwards, both directly (serenity, happiness) and indirectly (feeling loved improves self-esteem, feeling loving improves patience). It improves courage, motivation, and focus. It's a short-term fix for anxiety (which works even on partial success). It increases aesthetic appreciation. It's interesting, though most of the fun bits (like hallucinations) aren't universal.

Cons: If you attribute it to an external source, it can give you wrong beliefs. If you practice it in a group, it'll bind the group more than you might want. You might acquire some weird compulsions (I can't write "G-d", I occasionally have to stare at things). Some of the props might be expensive, depending on what works for you.

Comment deleted 30 December 2012 07:40:58PM *  [-]
Comment author: MixedNuts 30 December 2012 08:28:13PM -1 points [-]

Here you go again with continuum fallacy.

No I'm not. I'm saying that the religious groups you've observed go wonky because they're ideological groups, and that adding religion (without a taboo against criticizing it) won't increase the wonkiness. I admit it's hard to find examples because nearly all surviving religions have such taboos, but you could propose a mechanism, or any sort of attempt to answer "What's wrong with religion?" seriously I've been asking this for three comments spit it out already.

People who think they think exceptionally straight. Big difference.

Okay, so... you don't think religion actually moves people who already think straight away from the optimum, you think that it suggests bad ideas to overconfident people, who are insufficiently skeptical of them because of said overconfidence? Is that right? So, in this example, it'll make people who think they're good skeptics but aren't more confident that existential risks and AGI are likely and other popular LW beliefs, more than any series of speeches at a big LW meetup?

This community grows by accretion of people that can't think straight, to whom it is a particularly severe mental health hazard. See basilisks, various immortality rationalizations, et cetera.

Wait, what? Sure there's a whole lot of people here who are rather funny in the head, but people who are sensitive to ideas explained passionlessly in blog posts aren't examples of people more affected by religion...

Comment author: MugaSofer 09 January 2013 01:41:05PM *  -1 points [-]

No, it seriously puts people in a more suggestible state - it's better modeled as a drug that as a behavior. Yes, and there's another bonding behavior that delivers a lot of oxytocin and endorphins, namely sex.

You make a convincing argument in favor of banning sex. :P

Comment author: MixedNuts 09 January 2013 03:51:11PM 2 points [-]

Yes, but people go funny in the head too if sexually frustrated (also religiously frustrated, but more people are susceptible to the former). You could have anonymous wordless one-night-stands to get some of the benefits of partnered sex without it influencing the rest of your life, but you still get frustration from sexual tension between specific people.

Alternately we could take a leaf from bonobos and replace "hello" and "thanks" with sex. If everyone is permanently hovering between afterglow and indiscriminate horniness, nobody has a relative advantage in manipulating or lovebombing (heh) others.

However, most people's solution to the tradeoff between caution ("don't want to ruin our friendship", "don't stick your dick in crazy", and so on) and getting laid doesn't put all the weight on the former.

Comment author: MugaSofer 10 January 2013 08:50:24AM *  -2 points [-]

I meant more in weirdtopian terms than immediate ones. Love as wireheading and so on. It was mostly sarcastic, anyway.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 09 January 2013 02:06:56PM 0 points [-]

Even more convincing in favour of celibacy, which indeed has a long pedigree in many traditions of enlightenment.

Comment author: MugaSofer 10 January 2013 09:47:40AM -2 points [-]

I actually wrote "in favor of celibacy", but decided it wasn't strong enough. Why should I let everyone else get brainwashed and selfishly save only myself?