= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
adamzerner comments on Open Thread, Jun. 15 - Jun. 21, 2015 - 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 (302)
Consider the question: why is there such a stigma associated with rationality?
My impression is that it's because rationality is so general. Well, I don't think that's the only reason, but I think it plays a big role.
Think about it:
But there is with rationality. Maybe it's because all of those other things are narrow enough that it's not seen as an attempt to be "better" than others. But since rationality is so general, it is seen as an attempt to be "better" than others.
Of course, the term "better" can be broken into components, and it isn't so black and white. But my impression is that other people see it as black and white. Sort of - I think they see it as if there's some sort of threshold where if you cross it, you enter the domain of "better is black and white, and you're trying to be better than everyone else".
I'd start one step earlier: Is there a stigma associated with rationality?
And I would answer "no, there isn't". There is a stigma associated with smart but socially awkward people who try to tell others that their thinking is broken, but that's quite a different thing :-/
How do you interpret the (seemingly hostile) responses to LW/Eliezer on sites like https://news.ycombinator.com/news and reddit? (If you're familiar with it, that is)
Hostility towards LW/Eliezer doesn't have any more to do with a general hostility to rationality than does hostility towards Objectivism/Ayn Rand.
Eliezer's treatment of topics like cryonics, friendly AI, transhumanism, and the many world interpretation of quantum mechanics are more than enough to fuel a debate, even if one agrees that rationality is a worthwhile aspiration. People can disagree with you without being enemies of truth or logic.
LW is weird by mainstream standards. We use inaccessible language. There's advocacy of ideas like cryonics. We build pillow forts. People think incorrectly we believe in the basilisk.
Being different always produces some hostile responses.
I'm getting a pretty strong impression that there's more to it than simply being different.
Sorry, not familiar, I'm not much interested in internet dramas unless they are supremely entertaining.
I am sure there are YC people and redditors who don't like Eliezer and/or LW, but so what?
I see it as demonstrating peoples' hostility towards rationality.
Really, someone who doesn't like Eliezer or is put off by the LW vibe is suddenly demonstrating "hostility to rationality"?
You think that LW is the sole pure source of rationality in the world? That Eliezer (PBUH) brought True Rationality (tm) into the barbaric world of hoplessly deluded pagans?
No to all of that. Not necessarily the fact that they're put off, but the apparent magnitude + the fact that it seems to be shared by a lot of people.
The iffy part is the jump from "people hate LW/EY" to "therefore these people hate rationality". I don't see any reasons for this to be a valid conclusion.
Good point. I'm less sure that people hate rationality (or really, that they're put off by it; hate is a strong word). I can't recall any/much explicit evidence, but when I query my memory, but I'm remembering people responding as if they're put off by rationality itself. Like the way people talk on HN is as if they're put off by the concept itself. And that's the way people seem to respond if I mention that I'm interested in/study rationality. Definitely something that could use more evidence and investigation though.
Why do you say that in the first place? In what kind of context do you say that?
In some cases it is probably the other way round, i.e. some people probably started disliking LW and EY (there are several distinct (in some cases overlapping) reasons why some people might not like LW), and only then started to scoff at any mention of rationality, because it gets associated with a thing they dislike.
If what you have in mind is other meanings of the word "rationality", e.g. what someone who hasn't even heard of LW might think when they hear this word, the explanation, of course, would be different.
There is resentment of thinking. You are smarter and you know more so you are offensive to them.
My impression is that this isn't true for smartness/knowledge in general. Ex. math, history, business...
It's not a function of particular domains, it's a function of particular people.
The sort who can't last five minutes without bringing up how much they improved will find plenty of stigma.
Provided you don't become a self-righteous ass about it.
It's an attitude thing. People will perceive an attempt to be better than others if the individual starts acting the part. Socrates made a lot of enemies with his habit of going around correcting flaws in people's thinking.
The associated word is nerd. There a stigma for that.
Having the body of a bodybuilder isn't likely to make you seen as high status in an academic conference.
There a huge stigma associated with self help.
Do you mean "rationality" as defined in the LW-Wiki or rationality as the term is commonly understood out there?
Having just been at the LW Community camp in Berlin it's difficult for me to put a finger on what's connecting this community. There are people who explicitly don't label as rationalist but use phrases like "socially optimal" in normal conversation. It seems that there a clear cluster in which people of this community fall whether or not a person holds various individual beliefs.