= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Yvain comments on Rationalists Are Less Credulous But Better At Taking Ideas Seriously - 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 (285)
Not particularly. If we found that people who spent more time at church are more likely to believe in Jesus, one possible explanation (albeit not proven to be causal) is that going to church makes one believe in Jesus. Likewise, if we find that people who spend more time on Less Wrong are more likely to take a strange idea seriously, one possible (unproven, but reasonable to hypothesize) explanation is that going to Less Wrong makes one more likely to take strange ideas seriously.
Although it's perfectly reasonable not to want to sign up for cryonics (and I haven't signed up myself) the high probability of success but low signup rate among newcomers versus the lower probability of success and higher signup rate among veterans suggests the variable changing is "taking ideas seriously"; this is orthogonal to whether you should or shouldn't want to sign up for cryonics
(unless your claim is that veterans are more anti-deathist than newbies, which would also explain the data and should probably be tested on the next survey. But I think my point the the higher signup rate among veterans does not mean they are more credulous but reflects thought process change still stands)
"Rationalist" here is used to mean "exposed to rationalist ideas", not "is a rationalist person". I realize that's confusing but I don't have better terminology.
Would you please explain your rationale?
I understood, and then used, "rationalist" to mean "accurate map of the territory". I'd agree exposure to LW helps eliminate some biases and, in that way, it is rationalist training that improves one's rationality. I'm not yet willing to say Less Wrong = More Right in every case, however.
Maybe more time on LW leads to improved rationality... up to the point where it doesn't? I find the dogmatic-ish acceptance of certain ideas around here reminds me of religion. It is funny to me you used that example...
Did you actually look at the statistics? Whatever dogma you're seeing isn't there. It's more likely you're thinking some people you've had discussions with here are more representative of LW than they actually are.
As in the church, it isn't too terribly important to dogma that it has widespread acceptance among adherents to a particular faith in order to be dogma.
What is far more important to establishing dogma is having de facto authority and/or status leaders accept it and voice their support.
Doesn't this apply to any system where power is tilted and the high status members have ideologies? Should we call them all religions?
I suppose this happens in the way you note. I don't advocate labeling LW, or anyone else, a religion. I just meant to say certain aspects remind me of religion. Other aspects are nothing like religion.
I don't think cryonics is impossible. In fact, I'm probably in the proto-rationalist group that doesn't really understand the science but thinks it has a high probability of working someday. I just don't understand why it is so appealing.
The dogma seems to be more that "cryonics and the option for indefinite life extension is good" more than "cryonics is possible".
It may not be a religion but it sure as anything embraces a particular mythology.