Salemicus comments on Who are your favorite "hidden rationalists"? - Less Wrong

18 Post author: aarongertler 11 January 2015 06:26AM

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

Comments (40)

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

Comment author: jsalvatier 14 January 2015 12:45:46AM 1 point [-]

I'm surprised, I followed him on econlog for a long long time, but usually found him too ideological for my tastes (even though I lean pretty libertarian) and just not that interesting. What are some of your favorites?

Comment author: Salemicus 14 January 2015 10:38:16AM 3 points [-]

I'd suggest you start with the "Three Languages of Politics" - see e.g. podcast here example review here. Alternatively, It's all about how to be meta-rational about politics, spotting your own biases, and the way we frame our language in political discussion. In other words, very less-wrong stuff.

I agree he is ideological in the sense that he has priors for understanding new events. We all do. I disagree that he is ideological in the sense that he fails Ideological Turing Tests, but YMMV.

Comment author: jsalvatier 14 January 2015 07:51:36PM 2 points [-]

Two months later, he reemerged at his own domain, promising to avoid a particular kind of discourse, one aimed at closing the minds of those on one’s own side. Although Kling was never among the worst offenders on this score, one could indeed sense a shift in his tone. He prioritized framing his opponents’ positions in the most favorable light, and he developed a framework for understanding political issues from progressive, conservative, and libertarian perspectives.

Hey that sounds pretty good! This was precisely my problem with him on EconLog. My ideology match his a lot, but I was irritated because he seemed to make okay, but not especially good arguments for things I agreed with and seemed to frame things in unnecessarily charged ways. He often framed things in a very libertarian way (in a Three Languages of Politics sense, which seems like it has a pretty cool idea), and I'm glad he does that a lot less!

His book sounds interesting.