If you meant "Have more than one leader" you'd be on to something. That isn't what you meant though.
How do you know? Multiple leaders at least dilute the problem.
There is a difference between the connotations you are going with for 'gospel' and what amounts to a textbook that most people haven't read anyway.
I've read it. There's some time I'll never get back.
I sometimes wish people would submit to reference to rudimentary references to rational, logical, decision theoretic or scientific concepts as if they were dogma. T
Not what I meant. Those can be studied anywhere. "MWI is the correct interpretation of QM" is an example of dogma.
Socialize in person with rudimentary organisation?
Other rationalists manage without it.
Are you complaining (or shaming with labels the observation) that an economist and an AI researcher attempted to use their respective expertise to make predictions about the future?
No, I am referring to mind-killing aspects of the mythos: it fools people into thinking they are Saving the World This sense of self-importance is yet another mind killer. Instead of examining ideas dispassionaely,a s they should, they develop a mentality of "No, don't take my important world-saving role away from me! I cannot tolerate any criticism of these ideas, because then I will go back to being an ordinary person".
Don't give nonsense a free pass just because it is 'dissent'.
Is this nonsense ?
It contains five misspellings in a single paragraph: "utimately" "canot" "statees" "hvae" "ontoogical" which might themselves be enough for a downvote, regardless of content.
As for the is-ought problem, if we accept that "ought" is just a matter of calculations in our brain returning an output (and reject that it's a matter of e.g. our brain receiving supernatural instruction from some non-physical soul), then the "ought" is describable in terms of the world-that-is,...
I have several questions related to this:
If you visit any Less Wrong page for the first time in a cookies-free browsing mode, you'll see this message for new users:
Here are the worst violators I see on that about page:
And on the sequences page:
This seems obviously false to me.
These may not seem like cultish statements to you, but keep in mind that you are one of the ones who decided to stick around. The typical mind fallacy may be at work. Clearly there is some population that thinks Less Wrong seems cultish, as evidenced by Google's autocomplete, and these look like good candidates for things that makes them think this.
We can fix this stuff easily, since they're both wiki pages, but I thought they were examples worth discussing.
In general, I think we could stand more community effort being put into improving our about page, which you can do now here. It's not that visible to veteran users, but it is very visible to newcomers. Note that it looks as though you'll have to click the little "Force reload from wiki" button on the about page itself for your changes to be published.