IlyaShpitser comments on Open Thread, Jun. 15 - Jun. 21, 2015 - Less Wrong

5 Post author: Gondolinian 15 June 2015 12:02AM

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

Comments (302)

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

Comment author: IlyaShpitser 22 June 2015 12:50:38PM *  2 points [-]

I don't think Ayn Rand was Hitler. She wasn't as bad as cult leaders like Jim Jones,

My point was, it's not a steelman response to pick a deliberately weak foil (and Rand is a quite weak foil as far as movement leaders are concerned). It's not enough to be ?better? than Rand. There isn't even a total ordering on awfulness. That's what the Anna Karenina quote was about.


Do you think that everybody who tries to build a community is a guru?

No?

But I am not talking about everybody, I am talking about EY. And the relevant feature of EY's is not that he tried (and succeeded) to build a community, it's that he writes epistles, officiates weddings, has something called the Sequences (with a capital S!), etc. etc. etc.

He is not trying to build a community of colleagues/equals, as far as I can tell. If he did, he would act a lot more like Feynman.

Comment author: ChristianKl 22 June 2015 01:12:14PM 0 points [-]

My point was, it's not a steelman response to pick a deliberately weak foil (and Rand is a quite weak foil as far as movement leaders are concerned).

Do you use "movement leader" synonymous with "guru"? Feymann isn't a movement leader. Do you object to EY wanting to be a movement leader?

I don't think Ayn Rand is a deliberately weak foil. Jim Jones is a deliberately weak foil. I use Ayn Rand because it's the nearest "rational cult" I can think of.

If I would seek for "rational movement" I could also go for New Atheists. Richard Dawkins is a movement leader. On the other hand I wouldn't call him a guru. Would you?

Comment author: IlyaShpitser 22 June 2015 01:44:54PM *  0 points [-]

I use Ayn Rand because it's the nearest "rational cult" I can think of.

Why are you comparing against a negative example, rather than an example to emulate?

I already described what sorts of features of EY's make him a "guru."

Comment author: ChristianKl 22 June 2015 03:46:43PM 0 points [-]

Why are you comparing against a negative example, rather than an example to emulate?

Because you criticise him for being a "guru" and not for not being "XY" (word that describe a positive thing).

That makes it important to understand what you mean with guru and whether you consider someone like Dawkins to be a guru and who you consider to be guru's that aren't "deliberately weak foil".