= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
[LINK] Why I'm not on the Rationalist Masterlist
A long blog post explains why the author, a feminist, is not comfortable with the rationalist community despite thinking it is "super cool and interesting". It's directed specifically at Yvain, but it's probably general enough to be of some interest here.
http://apophemi.wordpress.com/2014/01/04/why-im-not-on-the-rationalist-masterlist/
I'm not sure if I can summarize this fairly but the main thrust seems to be that we are overly willing to entertain offensive/taboo/hurtful ideas and this drives off many types of people. Here's a quote:
In other words, prizing discourse without limitations (I tried to find a convenient analogy for said limitations and failed. Fenders? Safety belts?) will result in an environment in which people are more comfortable speaking the more social privilege they hold.
The author perceives a link between LW type open discourse and danger to minority groups. I'm not sure whether that's true or not. Take race. Many LWers are willing to entertain ideas about the existence and possible importance of average group differences in psychological traits. So, maybe LWers are racists. But they're racists who continually obsess over optimizing their philanthropic contributions to African charities. So, maybe not racists in a dangerous way?
An overly rosy view, perhaps, and I don't want to deny the reality of the blogger's experience. Clearly, the person is intelligent and attracted to some aspects of LW discourse while turned off by other aspects.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Comments (866)
I AM AN IDIOT, THEY ARE REAL AND TELLING THE TRUTH.
Original comment, for your viewing pleasure: (I hate it when people delete comments so you can't understand what was going on.)
Well be embarrassed, past me. Unwilling to accept the lack of evidence, I looked around for some more, and they are either a real person, or a truly spectacular hoax that spanned years building up a fake history.
So ... there you go, folks.
Yvain's excellent response.
I thought the "never read the comments section" rule could be safely ignored on that post, since comments were turned off. After following two of the pingbacks, I wanted to throttle two separate people and demand of them the ten minutes of my life that they wasted.
Lesson learned: Never read the comments section. No exceptions.
Where can we talk about it? He has comments turned off.
It might be sensible to make a link post for it in discussion, but it seems reasonable to discuss it here for continuity's sake.
Actually, it may be best to not discuss it in short-form comments; I haven't read the 772 comments on this post (I've been on vacation), and I don't expect to start now.
Social justice rhetoric tends to lose me when it shifts from "I should be heard in the conversation because I can contribute to it" to "I should be heard in the conversation because I cannot contribute to it."
The author apparently has the privilege of living in a bubble where everyone she knows fundamentally approves of all her opinions, but occasionally has one person out of 20 show up at a gathering who disagrees, and just may throw a fit if that person dare voice their opinions.
Me - atheist, egoist, libertarian - I'm lucky if one person out of 20 won't think I'm the devil if I'm open about my opinions. I weep for the discomfort she feels when my existence impinges on her awareness.
I note that a Christian or Muslim describing how they are hurt by those who dare openly(!) question their sacred values wouldn't receive such polite consideration, and certainly not by this blogger.
Are you ever in physical danger because of your opinions?
I don't believe the blogger was in any danger because of her opinions at a dinner party either.
My guess is that she travels in a terribly civilized circle where watching a boxing match would induce fainting spells. I travel in fairly pansified circles myself, and that's the way I like it. I like civilization.
As for actual violent crime, all the crime statistics I've seen show that men are at least as likely to be victimized as women.
Even in terms of partner violence, all of it of which I'm aware in my circles are of females acting out against their partners in rather dangerous ways. We've been laughing for years about how a female friend gave her boyfriend a shove down a staircase right in front of me in college. He managed to catch himself on the sloping ceiling above and avoid crashing to his death. The look he gave her in return was priceless.
Because you see, it's funny when women try to hurt men. When it's the other way around, it's a crime against humanity. And we all have to be thrown into a tizzy at the thought of violence used against a woman. The mere thought of the possibility of it entitles the blogger to have all opinions that give her a twinge of worry shut down. No matter that the statistics show that the evil enpenised person she shuts down faces the same or more risk of actual violence.
We have no idea how much violence the blogger has actually experienced, but it might have something to do why they're so concerned about it. I'm more than a bit surprised that they find SJ (?) circles so emotionally safe, but maybe they haven't run into the nastier emotional attacks is a way that affects them personally.
I agree that violence by women against men is all too frequently treated as funny-- in popular art as well privately. Is there anyone here who follows popular art enough to have an opinion about whether this has changed and in what direction?
I think violence against men by women not being taken seriously is partly sexism against women-- an idea that women aren't strong enough to do real damage. The other half of the problem (this is probably obvious to you) is a highly mistaken belief about how tough men ought to be.
Sometimes violence by men against men is portrayed as funny, too.
Violence by men against women portrayed as funny isn't as common but there are still some classic examples.
Violence by women against women is another trope entirely.
Monty Python and the Holy Grail: 1975
Airplane: 1980
It seems to me that a certain sort of violence by women against men was a common trope some decades ago-- perhaps other people can tell me whether it's still popular.
He says something obnoxious. She hits him, and not with a slap-- with a solid punch coming up from the ground. Big laugh from the audience. Rather implausibly, he isn't injured and he doesn't retaliate.
Not really a valid question; I feel similarly, but you quickly learn to suppress it when the situation becomes questionable. Anyone who reacts strongly to my more mainstream opinions, is almost certainly going to be a lost cause when it comes to my extremist opinions. I can't say I've been in physical danger because I've never pushed it to that point. However, I can think of instances where physical danger was on the table of options (the KKK in minnesota is a good example.)
Since it has suddenly become relevant, here are two results from this year's survey (data still being collected):
When asked to rate feminism on a scale of 1 (very unfavorable) to 5 (very favorable), the most common answer was 5 and the least common answer was 1. The mean answer was 3.82, and the median answer was 4.
When asked to rate the social justice movement on a scale of 1 (very unfavorable) to 5 (very favorable), the most common answer was 5 and the least common answer was 1. The mean answer was 3.61, and the median answer was 4.
In Crowder-Meyer (2007), women asked to rate their favorability of feminism on a 1 to 100 scale averaged 52.5, which on my 1 to 5 scale corresponds to a 3.1. So the average Less Wronger is about 33% more favorably disposed towards the feminist movement than the average woman (who herself is slightly more favorably disposed than the average man).
I can't find a similar comparison question for social justice favorability, but I expect such a comparison would turn out the same way.
If this surprises you, update your model.
I'm not sure about that. To my System 1, “50/100” means ‘mediocre’, whereas “3 stars (out of 5)” means ‘decent’.
Would love to see these numbers broken down by gender.
For the sake of simplicity, I used sex rather than gender and ignored nonbinaries. The average man on the site has a feminism approval score of 3.75; the average woman on the site has a score of 4.40. These are significantly different at p < .001.
The average man on the site has a social justice approval score of 3.55; the average woman on the site has a score of 4.21. These are, again, significantly different at p < .001.
Wow, this is exactly opposite of what I expected. Thank you!
You expected men to be more feminist than women? Why?
Because the Internet is weird? I've seen conversations in which the only feminists were men and the only MRAs were women.
(Myself, I expected the difference to have the same sign but be an order of magnitude smaller.)
BTW, FWIW in the survey on your blog men thought that being a woman is 3% worse than being a man and women thought that being a man is 3% better than being a woman, though the exact numbers varied noticeably depending on which question exactly they were answering.
Do you mean that this specific demographic difference is "weird" on the internet relative to real life?
Perhaps what he expected was for men to call themselves more feminist than women, for some sort of signalling reasons (of course anon survey responses aren't much use for signalling, but maybe the idea is that people get into the habit of describing themselves in particular ways and then continue to do so for consistency even in contexts where there's no signalling benefit.
They are if you signal for the group and expect other people do the same.
Perhaps this is obvious already, but the positions people explicitly endorse on surveys are not necessarily those they implicitly endorse in blog comments.
Anyone want to set up an implicit association test for LW?
Also, people are free to interpret blog comments as it suits their goals.
Maybe that's exactly what makes LW a good target. There are too many targets on the internet, and one has to pick their battles. The best place is the one where you already have support. If someone would write a similar article about a website with no feminists, no one on the website would care. Thus, wasted time.
In the same way, it is more strategic to aim this kind of criticism towards you personally than it would be e.g. towards me. Not because you are a worse person (from a feminist point of view). But because such criticism will worry you, while I would just laugh.
There is something extremely irritating about a person who almost agrees with you, and yet refuses to accept everything you say. Sometimes you get angry about them more than about your enemies, whose existence you already learned to accept. At least, the enemies are compatible with the "us versus them" dichotomy, while the almost-allies make it feel like the "us" side is falling apart.
EDIT: Seems like you already know this.
Possible defence: criticizing specifically people and organizations of similar views can be more cost-beneficial. If you write a giant article entreating people of similar-but-not-identical position, and that article tweaks their views and massively increases their instrumental rationality, it's much better, than if you write dozens of articles addressed at your political enemies, most of whom will never read it or will never get convinced. For example, you have communist friends who are mostly correct on social issues, but are completely wrong on dialectical materialism, their organizations are polluted with death spirals, their discussions are counter-productive because of wrong usage of words, etc. It would still be more productive to direct them to LessWrong, to explain reductionism, to teach them how to use words and reasoning, how to avoid cognitive and organization failure modes, than to try to bring neo-nazis, Christian fundamentalists, New Agers or even generic consumerist Philistines up-to-date from scratch.
This of course assumes that writing a giant critical article is actually a productive way to change someone's mind. Obviously, hateful feminist anti-LW/anti-nerd rants are doing a bad job of convincing us in their points, because most of those writers have never read Dale Carnegie, let alone Cialdini. But they write angry rants anyway, because that's how they get, as Russians say it, “the feeling of fulfilled duty”, a warm fuzzy.
"A heretic is someone who shares almost all of your beliefs. Kill him." - Some card game
Upvoted for that.
In my experience, groups that want something to attack will attack groups that are generally aligned with them, rather than groups that are further away -- possibly due to the perceived threat of losing members to the similar group.
I've seen so many Communists get called Nazis by other Communist groups -- and those groups never go after people who actually call themselves Nazis.
Offtopic, but ETA on the survey results being published?
Probably before the end of this month.
How big is the probability?
~~Update: Likely that feminist-inclined LWers are less likely to comment/vote and more more likely to take surveys.~~
Meta-update: This hypothesis ruled highly-improbable based on more data from Yvain.
Among lurkers, the average feminism score was 3.84. Among people who had posted something - whether a post on Main, a post in Discussion, or a comment, the average feminism score was 3.8. A t-test failed to reveal any significant difference between the two (p = .49). So there is no difference between lurkers and posters in feminism score.
Among people who have never posted a top-level article in Main, the average feminism score is 3.84. Among people who have posted top-level articles in Main, the average feminism score is 3.47. A t-test found a significant difference (p < .01). So top-level posters were slightly less feminist than the Less Wrong average. However, the average feminism of top-level posters (3.47) is still significantly higher than the average feminism among women (3.1).
I update in the direction that the model of people I form based on LW comments is pretty inaccurate.
My conclusion is that most posters in LW have conventionally liberal views (at least on social issues) but many of them refrain from participating in the periodic discussions that erupt touching on these issues. Some possible reasons for this: i) they hold these opinions in a non-passionate way that does not incline them to argue for them; ii) they are more interested in other stuff LW has to offer like logic or futurism and see politics as a distraction; iii) they mistakenly believe their opinions are unpopular and they will suffer a karma hit.
iv) they absorbed these views from their surrounding culture and don't actually have good arguments for them.
Possible, but I suspect the "Why our kind can't cooperate" both has a stronger effect and is more likely.
Indeed. I weep to imagine what the author of the linked article would think of us if she decided to check out the discussion her piece had inspired.
Who here thinks that the author of the blog post is female? I did.
Surprise(?)! The blog post doesn't seem to contain any information that would allow you to deduce the gender of the author. I briefly searched through the blog post and the comment found on Yvain's site, but I became none the wiser (I stopped searching at that point to respect the author's privacy). I wonder why I thought that the author of the blog post is female...
I haven't read the blog post yet, but I expect that being a feminist blogger (which was noted in the OP here) is a moderate-good predictor of being female (or at least not a hetero male).
I found gender conspicuously absent. Indeed, actual information about anything was conspicuously absent. I was strongly reminded of a curious feature of a flamewar that raged over SF-related blogs in 2009, which came to be called RaceFail.
I only came across that discussion a year after it had ended, through a chance mention somewhere, and was curious enough to look and see what it had all been about. You might think that easy: hyperlinks surely let one follow the discussion back all the way to the original postings that started it? Not at all. The curious pattern was this, and I observed it on all sides of the argument. People who were commenting on a blog post they agreed with would link directly to the specific post, and quote directly from it. People who were commenting on a blog post they disagreed with would not do that. They would link, if at all, only to the top level of the blog, and not quote but only paraphrase its content, or merely allude to it in terms that would convey little unless one had already read it -- and of course, upwards of a year after the event, there would be little possibility of tracking down which of dozens of possible postings they were talking about.
The blog post discussed here is all like that. Clearly, the author disagrees with someone and something, but never says who, what, where, or when. Everything is generality and allusion. To understand the allusions is the entry requirement, as it was for those RaceFail posts. The purpose of such writing is to be understood only by one's own side, to be a nod and a wink to say, "we know what I'm talking about, don't we?", and to leave no definite point for the enemy to attack. The difficulty that one has created for anyone outside the circle to engage with the matter can then be taken as further proof of their evilness.
I don't think it's possible to get a good overview of RaceFail. Aside from the linking issue (which I hadn't noticed), some of the material being attacked has been taken offline, and of course there plenty happening in private contacts which were never online.
If I look through this thread I find that there are plenty of people who had no trouble engaging the article and pointing out things of disagreement.
It's no easy text and you probably need some understanding of the underlying ideas, but it doesn't seem to me to be impossible to engage.
How much of that is because people just imagined their own ideas in the not-very-specific article, and responded to that.
If I just told you: "Someone was criticizing LW" and stopped here, it's not like your mind couldn't complete the pattern with some easily available scenarios.
The blog post contains very little specific information about anything. Without the "TL DR" as the end, I couldn't even deduce what the post was actually about (beyond: somewhere in the rationalist community someone said something offensive... and this is why I'm not on the Rationalist Masterlist).
Because it's a valid Bayesian inference based on the content of the post.
Given the issue of being misgendered, the person seems to be a transperson who either was female in the past and is now male or who was male and is now female. To you think post indicates which of those are the case?
I think the post makes clear that the person is no cis-male, but it's difficult to say things that are more specific.
I have read fairly many blog entries similar to this one, and to my recollection all were written by women.
Not that it particularly matters, but I assumed male (for reasons that aren't entirely clear to me) until I got to the line about being misgendered, at which point I shrugged my metaphorical shoulders and mentally tagged it as undetermined.
Given this sentence -- "...one person who has repeatedly misgendered me" -- from the second paragraph, it might be that the sex/gender of the blog author is... complicated.
Aha! I think that sentence is why I assumed the author was female - I remembered that there was a reference to them being upset by something relating to their gender, so I pattern-matched that to "female feminist".
That's a heuristic to keep an eye on.
How did that blog post come to your attention? It appears to have just been created, and that is the only post on it.
I was following a thread from August on Yvain's site. The author of the blog post we are discussing added a comment there on January 4 and Yvain replied. I should have included this link in my original write-up. And since I've started criticizing myself, I should have left out my half-baked musings on racism and spent more effort on summarizing the post I was linking to. For example, it might have been a good idea to quote the following:
This shows that the author is able to taboo words in order to improve readers' understanding. A communication skill justifiably prized on LessWrong.
I find striking the addendum which is mainly a list of examples of objecting to tabooing words, but includes a footnote tabooing "politically correct." (though I find that particular tabooing in bad faith, unlike the example of "privilege" in the main text)
Note that this community reacts badly to some topics as well.
The failing of being mind-killed by certain triggers is pretty common, and I have to give this author credit for recognizing it. I'd prefer an attempt to analyze and work with the emotional impact, to find ways to continue to discuss things where rationality is possible, rather than a set of examples that trigger this person specifically.
I do wonder if we should have a way to add trigger-warnings and filters to posts and comments. It can't be made perfect, and there are some interesting and smart people who will still not be able to participate, but it could help for those who just can't be open and tolerant of some topics. And it could perhaps allow us to explore some of WHY some topics are mind-killing to some people, and find ways to work around it rather than just avoiding the topic.
In the sense of being unfavourable to some topics, or being irrationally unfavourable to those topics?
In the same sense as the linked post: recognizing that there may be value in the discussion, but not trusting ourselves and each other to be rational enough to actually get the value in open discussion.
On one level, that's a rational reaction to our limitations in rationality. But those limits are irrational.
I think it's worth noting that we are (yet again) having a self-criticism session because a leftist (someone so far to the left that they consider liberal egalitarian Yvain to be beyond the pale of tolerability) complained that people who disagree with them are occasionally tolerated on LW.
Come on. Politics is rarely discussed here to begin with and something like 65*% of LWers are liberals/socialists. If the occasional non-leftist thought that slips through the cracks of karma-hiding and (more importantly) self-censorship is enough to drive you away, you probably have very little to offer.
*I originally said 80%, but I checked the survey and it's closer to 65%. I think my point still stands. Only 3% of LWers surveyed described themselves as conservatives.
Interesting. I wonder why LW has so few conservatives. Surely, just like there isn't masculine rationality and feminine rationality, there shouldn't be conservative rationality and liberal rationality. It also makes me wonder how valid the objections are in the linked post if the political views of LW skew vastly away from conservative topics.
Full disclosure: I'm a black male who grew up in the inner city and I don't find anything particularly offensive about topics on LW. There goes my opposing anecdote to the one(s) presented in the linked blog.
See the penultimate paragraph of this comment, take a look at this, and try to guess whether US::conservatives have higher or lower Openness in average than US::liberals.
There is a big difference between what sex you are and what beliefs you profess: The first should not be determined by how rational you are, while the second very much should. There should be nothing surprising about the fact that more intelligent and more rational people would have different beliefs about reality than less intelligent and less rational people.
Or to put it another way: If you believe that all political affiliations should be represented equally in the sceptic/rationalist community, you are implicitly assuming that political beliefs are merely statements of personal preference instead of seeing them as claims about reality. While personal preference plays a role, I would hope that there's more to it than that.
But it might affect how rational you are.
It's possible.
Why are you bringing it up, though? As an aspiring rationalist, I believe it should be possible in principle to discuss whether one sex is more rational than the other, on average. However, it makes me feel uncomfortable that a considerable number of people here feel the need to inject the topic into a conversation where it's not really relevant. If I were a woman, I can imagine I would feel more hesitant to participate on Less Wrong as a result of this, and that would be a pity.
It affects your argument that there is something wrong with having a skewed gender balance here.
It's an interesting topic, the moreso because it is taboo, and not exactly tangential to the subject, I think.
Compare with Cosma Shalizi on the heritability of IQ (emphasis mine):
At this point I would have to conclude that the guy is either very deliberately blind or is lying through his teeth.
He, of course, knows very well what the consequences for his career and social life would be were he to admit the unspeakable.
What you & Anatoly_Vorobey have quoted is talking about heritable IQ differences between individuals ("who do not have significant developmental disorders"). Is it possible you're conflating that with talking about heritable IQ differences between races or sexes?
That you use the word "unspeakable" suggests you are, as does the fact that your two cases of scientists suffering career consequences (Gottfredson & Cattell) are cases where they suggested genetic racial differences as well as genetic individual differences. (In fact, if I remember rightly, both went further and inferred likely policy implications of genetic racial differences.)
That's a good point, I think the two issues got a bit conflated in the discussion here.
However I can't but see it as a reinforcement of my scepticism. My impression is that the partial heritability of IQ in individuals is well established. At most you can talk about doubting the evidence or not believing it or something like that. Shalizi says he "has no evidence" which is not credible at all.
Yes, I think it supports your dim view of what Shalizi wrote. I also think it detracts from your implication that he's simply evading saying the "unspeakable", since heritable IQ differences between individuals are a much less contentious topic than heritable racial (or sexual) IQ differences.
You're wrong.
First, about the consequences: the theatrics of the "unspeakable" are getting a little tiresome. Shalizi is a statistics professor at Carnegie-Mellon. The Mainstream Science on Intelligence was signed by 52 professors and included very clear statements about interracial IQ differences, lack of culture bias, and explicit heritability estimates. I would ask you to name the supposedly inescapable and grave "consequences for career and social life" these 52 professors brought on their heads.
Second, about the subject matter: this quote comes at the end of a long post in which Shalizi challenges the accepted estimates of IQ heritability, and criticizes at length the frequent but confused interpretation of heritability as lack of malleability. In his next post on the subject, he criticizes the notion of a single g factor as standing on a shaky ground, having been inferred by intelligence researchers on the basis of factor analysis that is known to statisticians to be inadequate for such a conclusion. Basically, Shalizi criticizes the statistical foundations employed by IQ researchers as being statistically unsound, and he carries out this critique on a much deeper technical level than what normally makes it into summaries, popular books and blog posts. On the face of it, this isn't a completely ridiculous idea: we know that much of psychology and medicine routinely misuses statistics in ways that make experts wince, although we might also expect IQ researchers to have their statistical shit together much more decisively than your average soft-psychology paper.
There have been replies to Shalizi's critique on the same technical level, and further debates. Frankly, most of this goes over my head. I know just about enough basic statistics to understand most of Shalizi's critique but not assess it intelligently on my own, and certainly not to follow the ensuing debate. I doubt, however, that your dismissal of Shalizi's honesty is based on a solid understanding of the arguments in this debate about statistical foundations of IQ research.
That flat and unconditional statement seems to be mismatched with your sentence a bit later:
Given that you say you lack the capability to "assess it intelligently on my own" and given that I don't see the basis on which you decide I am statistically incompetent, I am rather curious why did you decide that I am wrong. Especially given that I was talking about my personal conclusions and not stating a falsifiable fact about reality.
P.S. Oh, and the bit about consequences for career? Try Blits, Jan H. The silenced partner: Linda Gottfredson and the University of Delaware
You're wrong because your conclusion that Shalizi was either blind or lying rested on two premises: one, that heritability in racial IQ differences has been proven, and two, that for Shalizi to admit this fact would be uttering the "unspeakable" and would carry severe social and career-wise consequences. I wrote a detailed explanation about the way Shalizi challenges the first premise on statistical grounds, in the field where he's an expert (and in a way that's neither blind nor dishonest, albeit it could be wrong). I gave an example that illustrates that the second premise is wildly exaggerated, especially when applied to an academic such as Shalizi. That's why you are wrong.
Your response was to twist my words into a claim that you are "statistically incompetent", where in fact I emphasized that Shalizi's critique was on a deep technical level, and that I myself lacked knowledge to assess it. That is cheap emotional manipulation. You also cited a paper about Gottfredson that wasn't relevant to what I said. Given this unpromising situation, I'm sure you'll understand if I neglect to address further responses of that kind.
Would you predict that the average IQ among LW census responders who self label as conservatives is lower? If so, how strong would you predict the effect to be?
Why not? Men and women are different in many ways. Why did you decide that a disposition to rationality can't possibly depend on your sex (and so your hormones, etc.)?
It's in reply to Quinton saying that there should be no masculine and feminine types of rationality. In other words, whether you are a man or a woman should not determine what the correct/rational answer is to a particular question (barring obvious exceptions). This is in stark contrast to asking whether or not political affiliation should be determined by how rational you are, which is another question entirely.
In other words: Just because correct answers to factual questions should not be determined by gender does not mean that political affiliation should not be determined by correct answers to factual questions.
I think political differences come down to values moreso than beliefs about facts. Rationalism doesn't dictate terminal values.
Sometimes it is difficult to find out what is the different value and what is essentially the same value but different models.
For example two people can have a value of "it would be bad to destroy humanity", but one of them has a model that humanity will likely destroy itself with ongoing capitalism, while the other has a model that humanity would be likely destroyed by some totalitarian movement like communism.
But instead of openly discussing their models and finding the difference, the former will accuse the latter of not caring about human suffering, and the latter will accuse the former of not caring about human suffering. Or they will focus on different applause lights, just to emphasise how different they are.
I probably underestimate the difference of values. Some people are psychopaths; and they might not be the only different group of people. But it seems to me that a lot of political mindkilling is connected with overestimating the difference, instead of admitting that our values in connection with a different model of the world would lead to different decisions. (Because our values are good, the different decisions are evil, and good cannot be evil, right?)
Just imagine that you would have a certain proof (by observing parallel universes, or by simulations done by superhuman AI) that e.g. a tolerance of homosexuality inevitably leads to a destruction of civilization, or that every civilization that invents nanotechnology inevitably destroys itself in nanotechnological wars unless the whole planet is united under rule of the communist party. If you had a good reason to believe these models, what would your values make you do?
(And more generally: If you meet a person with strange political opinions, try to imagine a least convenient world, where your values would lead to the same opinions. Even if that would be a wrong model of our world, it still may be the model the other person believes to be correct.)
I agree, though I'll add that what facts people find plausible are shaped by their values.
I'm always a little suspicious of this line of thinking. Partly because the terminal/instrumental value division isn't very clean in humans -- since more deeply ingrained values are harder to break regardless of their centrality, and we don't have very good introspective access to value relationships, it's remarkably difficult to unambiguously nail down any terminal values in real people. Never mind figuring out where they differ. But more importantly, it's just too convenient: if you and your political enemies have different fundamental values, you've just managed to absolve yourself of any responsibility for argument. That's not connotationally the same as saying the people you disagree with are all evil mutants or hapless dupes, but it's functionally pretty damn close.
That doesn't prove it wrong, of course, but I do think it's grounds for caution.
How about different factions (landowners, truck drivers, soldiers, immigrants, etc.) all advocating their own interests? Doesn't that count as "different values"?
Or, more simply, I value myself and my family, you value yourself and your family, so we have dufferent values. Ideologies are just a more general and complicated form.
"The first should not have anything to do with how rational you are, while the second very much should. " What does should mean there, and from where do you derive it?
LW is a US-centric site. When I saw the option, I assumed it meant the US interpretation of the "conservative" label, which (from Europe) seems impossible to distinguish from batshit crazy.
I like to see myself as somewhat conservative, but I even more like to see myself as not batshit crazy.
The definition given in the survey was “Conservative, for example the US Republican Party and UK Tories: traditional values, low taxes, low redistribution of wealth”.
As a US conservative, I can assure you the feeling is mutual, BTW.
Not sure what you mean by that. You feel European conservativism is crazy? You feel the interpretation of US conservatism is crazy? You feel US conservatives are functionally identical to crazy, if not actually so?
I meant that all the mainstream European parties seem crazy.
At a guess, I'd say this is linked to religion. Once you split out the libertarian faction (as the surveys historically have), it's quite rare for people on the conservative side of the fence (at least in the US) to be irreligious, and LW is nothing if not outspokenly secular.
People in the rationality community tend to believe that there's a lot of low-hanging fruit to be had in thinking rationally, and that the average person and the average society is missing out on this. This is difficult to reconcile with arguments for tradition and being cautious about rapid change, which is the heart of (old school) conservatism.
I think futurism is anti-conservative.
My steelman of the conservative position is 'empirical legislation' : do not make new laws until you have decent evidence they achieve the stated policy goals. "Ah, but while you are gathering your proof, the bad thing X is still happening!" "Too bad."
FAI is a conservative position.
To respond to the grandparent, I think in the US conservatives ceded all intellectual ground, and are therefore not a sexy position to adopt. (If this is true, I think one should view this as a bad thing regardless of one's political affiliation, because 'loyal opposition' is needed to sharpen teeth).
60%. But yes, it was funny to find out who the evil person was.
Actually, no, it was quite sad. I mean, when reading Yvain's articles, I often feel a deep envy of the peaceful way he can write. I am more likely to jump and say something agressive. I would be really proud of myself if I could someday learn to write the way Yvain does. ... Which still would make me just another bad guy. Holy Xenu, what's the point of even trying?
Yes, but people on the far right are disproportionately active in political discussions here, probably because it is one of the very few internet venues where they can air their views to a diverse and intelligent readership without being immediately shouted down as evil. If you actually measured political comments, I suspect you'd find that the explicitly liberal/social ones represent much less than 65%.
I did not know that, thanks!
Turns out I was wrong, according to the 2012 survey only like 65% of LWers are socialist/liberals.
Ok, that sounds much more reasonable.
The linked article is too long and it is not obvious what exactly its point is. I kept repeating to myself be specific, be specific while reading it.
I believe there was most likely one specific thing that offended the author... and rest of the long unspecific article was simply gathering as many soldiers as possible to the battle -- and judging by the discussion that started here, successfully.
The summary at the end hints that it was a use of word "eugenics" somewhere on LW, or maybe somewhere on some LW fan's blog. Unless that was just a metaphor for something. The author is probably disabled and feels personally threatened by any discussion of the topic, so strongly that they will avoid the whole website if they feel that such discussion would not be banned there. Unless that, too, was a metaphor for something.
(The main lesson for me seems to be this: If you want attention, write an article accusing LW of bad things. LW can't resist this.)
I don't think a random person critiquing LW would have the same impact. They also have to be "oppressed" or something.
Yes, they need to know our buttons and press them. Such as:
you are an unfriendly place for women;
you say that politics is the mindkiller, but secretly all of you are libertarians (or all of you are conservatives);
you are actually a cult;
...and for the best impact: all of the above, in a long article, with citations out of context from random parts of the website; quoting some offensive and heavily downvoted comments and presenting them as a typical LW content; claiming to be an expert on artificial intelligence or quantum physics and claiming that everything LW says on these topics is a pseudoscience. Did I forget something important? Oh yes, the basilisk! And end with a huge generalization that this all proves that LW is a horrible group of people, and that you will tell everyone you know to avoid LW: both your personal friends, and also any scientist or an organizer of an atheist or skeptic meetup.
(I am not saying this is what the linked article did. Just that this is what I would include into a troll manual, and bet money that LW couldn't resist discussing such article. But a subset of this is enough to succeed.)
You forgot torture vs dust specks, nerd rapture, building a benevolent God, and many-worlds.
...and cryonics.
It seemed like the whole rationality community was the problem, not just LW. I agree that more specificity would have helped-- in particular, the indicators she ignored with other people, and what went wrong in those relationships.
Most of the rest of the above comment seems to be insults accusing the author of bad faith, but this bit implied a question of fact:
Probably here.
We already practice eugenics, every time we do a genetic test and abort a fetus when it has some horrible transferrable genetic disorder. Frankly, we could do with a bit more of that - there are many, many horrible recessive genetic diseases which people should never have to endure, and which should be eliminated if at all possible. Not doing so strikes me as similar to not trying to cure polio.
And indeed there are plenty of people who object to that (at least where I am -- it may be different in places further away from the Pope).
To paraphrase: Our community is exclusionary in the sense that its standards for what constitutes an information hazard (and thus a Forbidden Topic) are as stingy as possible, which means that it can't be guaranteed safe for people more vulnerable to psychological damage by ideas than the typical LessWrong crowd.
It's possible that this problem could be resolved with a more comprehensive "trigger warning" tagging system and a filtering system akin to tumblr savior. Then there could be a user preference with a list of checkboxes, e.g.
etc.
This could also double as protection for people who want to participate in LessWrong but have, for example, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder which could be triggered by some topics.
This is a bit of a tangential ramble on why diversity might be kind of a good idea.
Different evidence accrues to people with different experiences.
A Bayesian agent who goes through an upbringing as a boy and one who goes through an upbringing as a girl will probably not possess identical beliefs about society, the world, humanity, and so on. This is not because one has been held back or misled, nor because one is less rational than the other ... but because two different partial explorations of the same territory do not yield the same map.
This does not mean that "men's truth" and "women's truth" (or "European truth" and "African truth") are different truths. Nor does it mean that any map is just as good as any other. Some people really do sit down and scribble all over their map until it is useless.
But since nobody's map is equivalent to the territory, overall we can expect that we will navigate the territory better if we can get help from people whose maps are different from our own.
That means that if we spend our time hanging out only with people whose experiences are a lot like our own, and going all Robber's Cave on anyone whose map doesn't look like ours, we are probably going to end up kinda ignorant. At the very least we will not have as complete a picture of the landscape as a group who has shared maps from lots of different paths.
This matters if we care about possessing accurate maps; and it also matters a great deal if what we are trying to map includes things like "the good of humanity" or "coherent extrapolated volition of humankind" or things like that.
The burning question is diversity in what exactly? I'm pretty sure there's good diversity and bad diversity, whatever your values happen to be. Then there's diversity that doesn't matter. I don't care how tall people here are.
Your argument is cogent, and yet I find the overwhelming majority of calls for diversity to be somehow underhanded. I suspect that your true motives are invisible to you. Consider this: is your motivation for valuing diversity really a product of your philosopher's thirst for pure, pristine knowledge, or do you just want every social group you see as important to be loaded with demographics which support your political faction? (Think carefully--the truth might not be obvious from casual introspection; we are masters at self-delusion when politics is at play.)
I say this because I cannot help but notice that the cry of "Diversity!" is invoked exclusively by those who are trying to import to a group those demographics which tend to offer political support to the left. What's more, the frequency which with this cry is invoked correlates positively with the degree to which that demographic supports the left. Consider the following data from the 2012 presidential election:
Whites voted 39% for Obama, and 59% for Romney. Blacks voted 93% for Obama, and 6% for Romney. Hispanics voted 71% for Obama, and 27% for Romney. Asians voted 73% for Obama, and 26% for Romney.
Source
When I encounter someone singing the praises of diversity, I more often find that they are lobbying for Blacks than Hispanics, rarely for Asians, and never for Whites. Blacks offer overwhelming support to the left, Hispanics are more lukewarm, Asians' support proportionally resembles that of Hispanics' (but they are a smaller group overall so it is less important for the left to signal respect for their faction), and Whites support the right. Coincidence? Unlikely.
Now consider gender (same source as above):
Men voted 45% for Obama, 52% for Romney. Women voted 55% for Obama, 44% for Romney.
Again, women support the left and men do not. Again, the cry of "Diversity!" is invoked for those trying to add women to a group, and rarely for men. I seem to encounter such arguments invoked as often for women as I do for racial minorities. While women do not favor the left as heavily as Hispanics or Blacks do, they are a larger group than all racial minorities combined, and so it is highly important for the left to signal respect for this demographic, and to ensure that they occupy positions of prestige and influence.
The overwhelming majority of people shouting, "Diversity!" are not motivated by epistemology at all. They are subconsciously (sometimes even consciously) making a power grab. That is all. You can tell by who, exactly, they are trying to include and in what they are trying to include them. For one, they are always lobbying for a demographic on the grounds that said demographic will bring additional knowledge to a discussion, but not for someone from a specific field of expertise which would be relevant to said discussion. There is likely to be more intellectual diversity between an exclusively middle class white male group comprising a physicist, a lawyer, a mathematician, a programmer, a chemist, a politician, an economist, and a businessman than there is between a demographically diverse group of eight people randomly selected from the general population. And you regularly see the pro-diversity crowd lobbying for their favored demographics to occupy positions in which being demographically distinct cannot possibly be an advantage, such as in the hard sciences. I find the champions of diversity disingenuous in the extreme.
I wouldn't mind "importing a demographics which tends to support X" assuming that we continue using the existing filters on content, and require rational comments and avoiding mindkilling politics. The difference between 55% and 44% seems unimportant, because we don't use majority voting in LW anyway. It's not like a 5% advantage would make someone win or lose an election. Unless we really lose our basic community values, it wouldn't even mean that the minority group would automatically get negative karma for every comment.
I am more concerned about "importing a subset of a demographics, selected by its support for X". As a strawman example, by suggesting that we need more Obama-voting women, but we actually don't care about Romney-voting women. As a more realistic example, by trying to optimize LW for women from the feminist / social justice warrior cluster, instead of for women in general. (Because, you know, there are also women who prefer free speech, and some changes would make LW even less attractive for them.)
Therefore I think new demographics should be invited here, but in a way that does not signal preference for a political group X. Specifically, we should invite women, not feminists. (If some of those women who come happen to be feminists, that's perfectly okay. As long as they are equally invited if they are libertarian, conservative, neoreactionary, or whatever.) If we want to invite the demographics, let's really invite a demographics, instead of making a power grab for a political group X in the name of inviting the demographics.
At first I agreed, but, well...
Consider these two theories:
How would you tell which of these theories is true?
I have said nothing of the left promoting the well-being of minorities, and I have said nothing of why minorities support the left. I have said that the left tries to place left-leaning demographics in positions of power and influence (which is not always the same thing as actually helping those demographics, although helping them may be a side effect), and that leftists try to populate their social circles with those same demographics. Obviously, the right tries to place right-leaning demographics in positions of power and influence as well. For that matter, anyone who identifies with faction X tries to place likely X-ists in positions of power and influence. However, an attempt to do such a thing rarely feels like a power grab from the inside, regardless of your political orientation. Inside the mind of a leftist, a power grab of this form feels like promoting the noble cause of diversity.
in what way are those theories exclusive of each other?
Only if their maps are better than random. We should try to attract those people from the under-represented groups whose maps are better than random.
People with strong political identities usually have their maps systematically distorted. So while trying to attract the members of the under-represented groups, we should avoid political applause lights, to avoid attracting the most politically active members of these groups.
Specifically, I think LW would benefit from participation of many women, but we should avoid applause lights of feminism, social justice, or however it is called. Because that's just one specific subset of women. If a person with strong political opinions criticizes LW as not the best place for them... well, maybe in this specifical case, that's system working as intended.
Instead, invite all the smart women you know to the LW meetup, and encourage them to write an article on LW. Select them by smartness, not by political activity and willingness to criticize LW for not conforming to their party line. Analogically for any other under-represented groups. Invite them as individuals, not as political forces.
Oh, certainly. Feminism points out, though, that the social mainstream is also a strong political identity which systematically distorts people's maps. They use somewhat unfortunate historical words for this effect, like "patriarchy". That's just a label on their maps, though; calling a stream a creek doesn't change the water.
So combining this with your guideline, we should be careful not to invite anyone who has a strong political identity ... but we cannot do that, because "ordinary guy" (and "normal woman") is a strong political identity too. It's just a strong political identity one of whose tenets is that it is not a strong political identity.
We don't have the freedom to set out with an undistorted map, nor of having a perfect guide as to whose maps are more distorted. Being wrong doesn't feel like being wrong. A false belief doesn't feel like a false belief. If you start with ignorance priors and have a different life, you do not end up with the same posteriors. And as a consequence, meeting someone who has different data from you can feel like meeting someone who is just plain wrong about a lot of things!
Also ... I wonder what a person whose maps of the social world were really "no better than random" would look like. I think he or she would be vastly more unfortunate than a paranoid schizophrenic. He or she would certainly be grossly unable to function in society, lacking any ability to model or predict other people. As a result, he or she would probably have no friends, job, or political allies. Lacking the ability to work with other people at all, he or she would certainly not look like a member of any political movement.
As such, I have to consider that when applied to someone who clearly does not have these attributes, that expression is being used as merely a crude insult, akin to calling someone a "drooling moron" or "mental incompetent" because they disagree with you.
If everyone has a strong political identity, then the phrase “strong political identity” is meaningless.
Exactly. Reversed stupidity is not intelligence.
Let me try to unpack it a bit:
People who do not claim a named gender-related political identity (like "feminist" or "MRA") nonetheless typically explicitly teach and reinforce ideas about gender ... and get defensive about them in pretty much the same way that people get defensive about political ideas.
This sounds awfully like "if you're not with me, you're my enemy." Any advice how to untangle myself from this web that seems inescapable? I already don't vote or read the news from any particular source, nor do I actively try to change political opinions.
People with agendas seem to want to make everything about politics and me as their pawn as a consequence. When they try to take my passiveness IRL as a sign of opposition to their political agenda, I usually proceed to explain how much more of a political enemy I could be just to demonstrate my point if I cared to.
tldr: Having strong political opinions feels like common sense from the inside.
Even if everyone's map is distorted, I think there is an important difference whether people try to update, or don't even try. Which is part of what this website is about.
In other words, I would be okay with an X-ist who says they could be convinced against X-ism by evidence, even if they obviously consider such evidence very unlikely.
(And I obviously wouldn't be okay with people suggesting that presenting an evidence against X-ism should be punished.)
Right. Refusing beforehand to consider certain types of argument/conclusion without looking at their merits, and having freely-acknowledged yet apparently-not-seen-as-a-problem-and-even-actively-justified emotional reactions to those arguments that trigger that refusal[1], seem like exactly the sort of things this site -- or any community dedicated to generating quality thought -- would want to discourage as much as possible. And when the justification is given in the language of a thede/tribe/political movement/identity that is opposed to the types of argument/conclusion being rejected... well, creating/promoting/incentivizing those emotional reactions is very useful to the movement, but not at all conducive to generating quality thought.
(The fun part about all of this is that it looks like it leads straight to a version of Marcuse's paradox (tolerance requires intolerance of intolerance): you have to refuse to update toward refusing to update.)
[1] I've been calling this sort of thing a memetic immune reaction, extending the memes-as-viruses metaphor. The justification for it isn't always present, and the emotional trigger to the refusal isn't always acknowledged, so that blog post is really an excellent case study. (edit: whoops, asterisks are bullet points, can't footnote that way)
I strongly suspect that people who make the claim "no amount of evidence could convince me of not-X" have simply absorbed the meme that X must be supported as much as possible and not the meme that all beliefs should be subject to updating. I very much doubt that expressing the above claim is much evidence that the claim is true. And it's hard to absorb memes like "all beliefs should be subject to updating" if you are made to feel unwelcome in the communities where those memes are common.
I can see the problem you're trying to avoid-- the assumption that one sort of feminism is typical for women. And I think it's worth avoiding.
However, you seem to be implying that men aren't excessively clustered by politics at LW.
Also, the problem pointed to in the Not on the Master List article doesn't generally manifest at that level of fear. I think the more common negative reaction to LW is moderate revulsion, and I suspect that just inviting more women isn't going to solve it.
If anyone tried the experiment of inviting more women, it might be world posting about how it worked out.
Maybe it's just that when someone says: "I feel uncomfortable about X", my natural reaction is thinking about a possible fix; but when someone says: "I am a member of a tribe T and we dislike X", my natural reaction is: Fuck you, and fuck your tribe T!
Only later comes the rationalization, that improving a situation for a specific person, especially for someone who feels some discomfort and yet wants to be a member of the community, is good for the community. But obeying demands made in the name of a different tribe, just helps the other tribe conquer this territory; and the complaining person probably wasn't interested in membership too much, just wanted to plant a flag of the tribe T here.
My model of a person who wrote this article is that even if LW changed according to their wishes, they wouldn't join LW anyway (they would just tick off another internet battle won), or they would join but would contribute mostly by criticizing other things they don't like, making some existing members (including women) uncomfortable.
Still, there is a question: If we change according to this person's wishes, maybe this person will not join us, but perhaps some other person would? In which case, I recommend thinking about making LW more comfortable to this hypothetical other person, whose wishes in fact don't have to be the same. Maybe this other person would actually prefer to express their opinions more freely.
According to the survey, it's 36% liberal, 30% libertarian, 27% socialist, (edit:) 3% conservative. (Okay, that's all members, but since men are 90%, I assume the numbers for men would be pretty much the same, plus or minus at most 10% in some category.) At worst that would be (edit:) three different clusters; and any specific of them would be a minority.
Still, some groups are louder than the others. For example, the Moldbug fans are impossible to overlook. On the other hand, I don't remember hearing much socialist opinions here; and I think I would have noticed. Not sure what it means. (Different average loudness of different groups?)
Common reaction among who? The people who decided to write a critical article about LW? That is not necessary a reaction of an average person.
Assuming that more women on LW would mean more articles and comments written by women, it would either mean that the content gets less repulsive on average... or that LW fans are repulsive to outsiders whether they are male or female, so at least it cannot be blamed on gender disparity anymore.
Math. Conservatives are 3%.
Just 3 labels make up roughly 93%, and I'd say only two real clusters, as libertarian vs. socialist/liberal. I haven't noticed substantive debates here between liberals and socialists. It would be interesting to see, if someone can point some out.
Note the predominance of the Anglosphere - with the 4 top represented countries making up around 75% of the survey respondents, and those 4 countries being 4 of the top six in per capita terms.
This doesn't matter for your point; I'm just letting you know: the survey results showed 3% conservative, not 35%. There were 35 total conservatives, which was 3% of respondents.
Not sure if you meant to imply this, but did the linked article read to you like, "I am a member of tribe T and we dislike X"? To me it just sounded like, "I feel uncomfortable about X."
Uhm, after reading the article again, I think you are right. It was written as: "I feel uncomfortable about X."
Yet I somehow perceived it completely differently. I wonder why exactly. Probably because it was long and not going to the point (which made the real point less obvious) and contained a lot of keywords typical for a specific tribe (so I assumed it was speaking in the name of the tribe).
Also because members of that tribe frequently argue that making them uncomfortable should be a punishable offense.
" moderate revulsion" is a reaction I've seen from people who I would like to be party of the community and I thought had a reasonable chance of being interested.
Taboo "diversity". Specifically are you saying that having norms that prevent certain views from being expressed increases diversity by making the community more welcoming for members of minorities or are you saying that preventing certain views from being expressed decreases diversity.
The apparent inconceivability (in this thread) of the notion that someone might disagree on a deep level with local memes without being insane is quite amazing. Typical mind fallacy, the lack of realisation that there exist unknown unknowns.
Yes. This thread reads like LW is aimed at realising the CEV of well-off programmers in the Bay Area. If you're serious about working for all of humanity, it may conceivably be useful to seriously listen to some who don't already agree with you.
I don't think that's the case. If people would find that notion inconceivability I doubt that the thread would be upvoted to 19 at the point of this writing.
I would also point out that the kind of ideology that expressed in the linked post comes from the Bay Area. As far as core differences in ideologies goes pitting one Bay Area ideology against another Bay Area ideology isn't real diversity of opinion.
I considered posting a third-hand account in the rationality quotes of a blind couple who, in a public park and not hearing anyone else nearby, decided to have sex. They told the judge they did not know that anyone could see them; maybe they didn't, what with plausibly having no idea what vision is capable of.
It felt too lengthy, and it wasn't originally intended as a parable, so I decided against posting it. I think it more easily explains itself in this context, though.
Refusing to tolerate tolerance is dangerous.
Let's please continue to tolerate tolerance.
I like Less Wrong-- there are courtesy rules here which keep it from going wrong in ways which are common in SJ circles. People get credit for learning rather than being expected to get everything right, and it's at least somewhat unusual to attack people for having bad motivations.
This being said, there are squicky features here, and I'm not just talking about claims that women are different from men-- oddly enough, it generally (always?) seems to be to women's disadvantage, even though there's some evidence that women are more trustworthy at running banks and investment funds.
I tolerate posts like this, but LW would seem like a friendlier place (to me) and possibly even be more rational if articles about gender issues would take utility for men and women equally seriously.
Reactionaries had something of a home here-- less so after the formation of More Right, I think. I haven't seen evidence of anything especially extreme on the egalitarian side, though there might be as good a rationalist case to be made for thorough reparations. Now that I think about it, I haven't even seen a case made for strong economic support for intelligent poor children.
Trolley problems..... I keep getting an impression that the point is that people don't have enough inhibitions against killing for the greater good. (By the way, how easy do you think it would be to move an unwilling person who weighs a good bit more than you do?)
And torture seems to be taken too lightly. It's a real world problem, not just a token to be passed around in arguments.
What the original post made me realize is that what I consider most certain to be valuable at LW is the instrumental rationality material, and it would be a good thing for there to also be an online site for instrumental rationality without the "let's do low-empathy discussions to prove how rational we are" angle.
Does there need to be a case made for that? This seems like one of the earliest identified reasons for redistributing wealth. You had people and organizations sponsoring poor talented youth and this being considered virtuous since ancient Greece. And the reform of education and welfare in the 19th and 20th century often emphasized this example, thought they may not have always done much about it.
In Slovenia at least we have scholarships handed out to people who preform very well on aptitude tests, is this something that doesn't happen as reliably in the US?
Several states have merit-based scholarships (though these usually require performance in classes as well as aptitude tests, so there is a conscientiousness element as well as an intelligence element). I myself am going to university on a Bright Future scholarship. However, my impression is that federal need-based aid is a lot more common than state merit-based aid.
I know smart Americans who grew up very poor, and don't seem to have received a lot of help.
I believe that the "problem" is that Lesswrong loves contrarians.
If a smart-sounding article espousing conservative opinions on social issues appears, most lesswrongers will disagree but be interested in reading anyway because it's novel and there is a dearth of smart conservative opinions in the world, and the exciting chance to "actually change their mind" looms.
If a smart-sounding article espousing liberal opinions on social issues appears, most lesswrongers will agree but be disinterested in reading because they've heard it all before, and it's preaching to the choir, and it's political and mind-killing, etc.
This reversal of traditional attitudes to disagreement has its merits, but we're seeing the downsides too. (one of the many reasons I advocate having separate feedback buttons for agreement, interest, and quality assessment)
Doesn't this problem gradually fix itself? For example, at the beginning I was interested in Moldbug's articles, but these days I just consider them boring. I have already heard the big picture; there is now nothing new, just reiterating what was already said; the lack of evidence or even clear explanations is very annoying, and I have already given up hope that it could be improved.
These days, if someone says something seemingly smart like "Cthulhu always swims left", my first though is: give me a definition of what the hell do you even mean by this, then give me an evidence that it really happens, and if you don't give any of it (which is my expectation based on previous experience) then just please shut up because you're wasting my time.
Speaking for myself, the neo-reactionaries had their chance (which I consider to be a good thing -- because I learned a few interesting things), and they wasted it.
Your examples remind me of this thread on suicide, which is the most distressing thing I've read on less wrong. (Though it is not exactly an example of "low empathy.")
This puzzles me. Would you elaborate on the reasons why you found it distressing?
I thought it could actually encourage another suicide. Suicidal feelings are ubiquitous, and the actual act is not that uncommon. When it's committed it's often a very disproportionate response to misfortune, or even to a mad self-hating inner monologue. I think the sober discussions that take place here about when misogyny, murder, or torture are warranted are mostly in bad taste, but I find it implausible that they will cause a harm worse than offense. Not so for a sober discussion of when suicide is warranted (even though it is not "offensive" in the same sense!).
I don't really like trolley problems either, but I don't think they can be waved away. When programming a self-driving car's decision algorithm for reacting when a car full of people skids in front of it while there is a single pedestrian on the sidewalk where it would have to swerve, you are essentially dealing with a real -world trolley problem.
Better to hit the other car rather than the pedestrian. The people in the car are protected by a lot of metal and will tend to suffer much less damage.
I think a lot of the focus on trolley problems is they're sort of a platonic model of making hard decisions about tradeoffs, with the idea being that if you can convince people it's right to make tradeoffs in the most obvious situation, they should consider the tradeoffs in much more complicated policy decisions also. EG people who propose Basic Income want people to be willing to trade "some of your money" for "greater happiness for many people". This is also what a lot of Effective Altruism movement is based on, making GOOD tradeoffs rather than bad ones.
It's funny, I am totally sympathetic to everything you wrote here, yet all I can think is, "my daily life is chock full of people incapable of grappling with trolley problems or discussing torture concretely, why are you trying to make LessWrong more like real life?"
This encourages me to think more about just what I was proposing....
A lot of what I was trying to do was demonstrate that I think the writer of the original link has a point. This is not quite the same thing as a call for action, even though I'd be happier without the trolley problems.
Another angle I was taking was that LW is theoretically open-minded, but is actually much more hospitable to some sorts of radical low-empathy ideas than others.
What I think is more feasible than changing LW (which is not to say very feasible) would be an empathy-tilted rationalist blog. It might be an independent development or started by disaffected LWers.
Have a probably empathic idea: HBD focuses on IQ, but there's little or no discussion of the possibility of tech for raising IQ from 90 or so to 110, even though that would make a large positive difference.
Meanwhile, I'll mention Hillary Rettig, a progressive who's good on instrumental rationality.
What does [Edit: raising IQ] have to do with HBD?
If IQs can be raised then one aspect of HBD becomes less important.
Depends on how hard it is and whether how far they can be raised depends on their "natural" value.
Are you talking about raising the IQ of a person, or the average IQ of a population? There's little discussion of the former because decades of failed interventions has made "you can't raise an existing person's IQ reliably" the default hypothesis. Once you've got past the easy childhood stuff like nutrition, lead paint and iodine deficiencies, there's not a lot you can do. Aside from some kind of Black Swan like a pill that raises you up a standard deviation, there's not much room for hope.
Raising the IQ of the next generations though, there's discussion on that since all the theory deems it totally possible. See here for example.
But yes, in absolute terms there's little discussion on how to solve the problem. Many writers assume the problem is politically intractable.
I was talking about raising the IQs of large numbers of existing people.
My impression is that there just isn't much interest is looking for physical solutions.
Compare the amount of interest in combating obesity to the amount of interest in becoming more intelligent.
There's a good amount of interest in eg r/nootropics and Gwern has written about the possible benefits of supplementing local water supplies and whatnot. Part of the problem is that the solutions are political complex since they involve A) convincing sufficient people IQ is really a thing and then B) getting large groups of people to admit they're dumb and want their children to be smarter. In terms of technical solutions we're just not there cybernetically yet I don't think. Genetic solutions have the whole eugenics problem to contend with though china seems to be working on it regardless.
Re: trolley problems and torture:
I seem to remember reading somewhere, I think it was something Daniel Dennett said, about the value of having philosophers willing to explore ideas that are (and maybe should be) taboo for ordinary people.
Take Peter Singer, for example. I don't buy the whole standard consequentialist package in ethics, but I really like Peter Singer. And he says things that are really shocking to many people, for example arguing that infanticide is often morally OK. But I suspect being willing to consider shocking ideas like that may be a prerequisite for being able to make progress on certain really important topics (see Singer's ideas about animal rights, charity, and some areas of medical ethics). Not everyone needs to be Peter Singer, but having a few Peter Singers - even a whole blog community of them - seems really valuable.
A couple other points: on torture, I don't think it's exactly being taken lightly. Rather, I suspect the reason it's used as an example is precisely because it an archetypal example of a really horrible thing.
As for seeming un-empathic, I don't think it's just rationality signaling. There's an issue that when you're making decisions that effect huge numbers of people, being too driven by your feelings about one case can lead to decisions that are really bad for the other people involved and that you wouldn't make if you really thought about it.
That post is by GLaDOS, who is female. I doubt GLaDOS values women less than men, but it would be nice if you would actually make a case for your insult/accusation rather than just throwing it in without any discussion.
That post struck me as ignoring any advantages divorce might have (like getting out of bad marriages) for women.
It seems clear to me that the post was not about weighing the pros and cons of divorce in total (something which would take a lot more than a short post). The post makes a more abstract point about the way incentive changes can have large impacts even without people coordinating to deliberately change behavior. That seems like a very appropriate topic for Less Wrong.
Just wanted to mention that an amazing amount of arguments in this thread and in the linked piece consists of misidentified non-central fallacies (in Yvain's labelling). None of the targets of the labels used ("racist", "eugenics", "feminist", what have you), correspond to a typical image evoked by using them.
link: http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_noncentral_fallacy_the_worst_argument_in_the/
Apposite criticism. Most worrying excerpt:
Self-selection in LessWrong favors people who enjoy speaking dispassionately about sensitive issues, and disfavors people affected by those issues. We risk being an echo-chamber of people who aren't hurt by the problems we discuss.
That said, I have no idea what could be done about it.
I hesitate to suggest this, but I've noticed most of the "sensitive but discussed anyway" issues have been on areas where socially weaker groups might feel threatened by the discussion. Criticism of socially strong groups is conspicuously absent, given that LW demographics are actually far-left leaning according to polls.
If the requirement that one must be dispassionate would cut in multiple directions simultaneously (rather than selectively cutting in the direction of socially marginalized groups) then we'd select for "willing to deal intellectually with emotional things" rather than selecting for "emotionally un-reactive to social problems" (which is a heterogeneous class containing both people who are willing to deal intellectually with things which are emotionally threatening and people who happen to not often fall on the pointy end of sensitive issues)
The reason I hesitate to suggest it is that while I do want an arena where sensitive issues can be discussed intellectually without driving people away, people consciously following the suggestion would probably result in a green-blue battleground for social issues.
There's lots of talk about religion which is almost the definition of a socially strong group.
Well sure, but that doesn't count because we're pretty much all atheists here. Atheism is the default position in this social circle, and the only one which is really given respect.
I'm talking about criticisms of demographics and identities of non-marginalized groups that actually frequent Lesswrong.
If we're allowed to discuss genetically mediated differences with respect to race and behavior, then we're also allowed to discuss empirical studies of racism, its effects, which groups are demonstrated to engage in it, and how to avoid it if we so wish. If we're allowed to empirically discuss findings about female hypergamy, we're also allowed to discuss findings about male proclivities towards sexual and non-sexual violence.
But for all these things, there's no point in discussing them in Main unless there's an instrumental goal being serviced or a broader philosophical point being made about ideas...and even in Discussion, for any of this to deserve an upvote it would need to be really data driven and/or bringing attention to novel ideas rather than just storytelling, rhetoric, or the latest political drama.
Reactionary views, being obscure and meta-contrarian, have a natural edge in the "novel ideas" department, which is probably why it has come up so often here (and why there is a perception of LW as more right-wing than surveys show).
Speaking for myself, I would be happy to see a rational article discussing racism, sexism, violence, etc.
For example, I would be happy to see someone explaining feminism rationally, by which I mean: 1) not assuming that everyone already agrees with your whole teaching or they are a very bad person; 2) actually providing definitions of what is and what isn't meant by the used terms in a way that really "carves reality at its joints" instead of torturing definitions to say what you want such as definining sexism as "doing X while male"; 3) focusing on those parts than can be reasonably defended and ignoring or even willing to criticize those part's that can't.
(What I hate is someone just throwing around an applause light and saying: "therefore you must agree with me or you are an evil person". Or telling me to go and find a definition elsewhere without even giving me a pointer, when the problem is that almost everyone uses the word without defining it, or that there are different contradictory definitions. Etc.)
Here's some empirical research on the actual causes of the pay gap. Executive Summary: The majority of the burden of child rearing still falls on women, and this can be disruptive to their careers prospects, especially in high paying fields like law and bussiness management; childless women and women who work in jobs that allow for flexible hours earn incomes much closer to parity.
Side note: I can't really tell, but some evidence suggests the total time spent on childcare has increased in the past 40-50 years. Now, when I look at people raised back then and try to adjust for the effects of leaded gasoline on the brain, they seem pretty much OK. So we should consider the possibility that we're putting pointless pressure on mothers.
As you said, "much closer to parity". There are probably multiple causes, each responsible for a part of the effect. And as usual, the reality is not really convenient for any political side.
Some of my favorite feminist articles are the ones demonstrating actual statistical effects of irrational biases against women, such as http://www.catalyst.org/file/139/bottom%20line%202.pdf talking about women being undervalued as board members, or the ones talking about how gender blind audition processes result in far more women orchestra members.
For the record, I completely support anonymous evaluation of orchestra members, and many other professions. And students, etc.
This is how quickly I update in favor of feminism when presented rationally. :D
More meta: This is why I think this kind of debate is more meaningful.
Do the results of the blind tests give you some reason to think there might be harder-to-quantify irrational prejudice against women?
Yes.
That alone doesn't imply agreement with any specific hypothesis about what exactly causes the prejudice, nor with any specific proposal how this should be fixed. That would require more bits of evidence.
In general, I support things that reduce that prejudice -- such as the blind tests -- where I see no negative side-effects. But I am cautious about proposals to fix it by reversing stupidity, typically by adding a random bonus to women (how exactly is it quantified?) or imposing quotas (what if in some specific situation X all women who applied for the job really were incompetent? just like in some other specific situation Y all men who applied could be incompetent).
Also, there are some Schelling-point concerns, e.g. once we accept it is okay to give bonuses on tests to different groups and to determine the given group and bonus by democratic vote or lobbying, it will become a new battlefield with effects similar to "democracy stops being fair once people discover they can vote themselves more money out of their neighbors' pockets". It would be nice to have some scientists discover that the appropriate bonus on tests is exactly 12.5 points, but it is more like real world to have politicians promising bonus 50 points to any group in exchange for their vote, of course each of them having "experts" to justify why this specific number is correct. -- And I would hate to have a choice between a political party that gives me -1000 points penalty and a political party that gives me +1000 points bonus, which I would consider also unfair, and in addition I might disagree with that party on some other topics. And given human nature, I would not be surprised inf those -1000 and +1000 parties become so popular among their voters that another party proposing to reset the bonuses back to 0 would simply have no chance.
One thing I would like to see-- and haven't-- in regards to opposition to prejudice is work on how to become less prejudiced. That is, how to see the person in front of you accurately, even if you've spent a lot of time in an environment which trained you to have pre-set opinions about that person.
The Cathedral, to use Moldbug's terminology, is certainly a non-marginalized group and LW is full of its adherents.
Agreed, but we devote plenty of time to criticizing it, don't we? (Both reactionary criticism, and the more mainstream criticisms of the media/academia culture)
But the thing about the reactionary lens, especially Moldbug, is at the end of the day they side with the people in power. Moldbug even explicitly states as much. A central theme of his work is that we shouldn't keep elevating the weaker and criticizing the stronger, thus creating endless revolution. "Formalism" essentially means "maintaining the status quo of the current power heirarchy". The only exception to this is the Cathedral itself - because it is a power structure which is set up in such a way that it upsets existing heirarchies.
So the moldbug / reactionary ideology , at the core, is fundamentally opposed to carrying out the criticism which I just suggested against anyone who isn't part of "the cathedral" which keeps shifting the status quo (hence the meta contrarianism). It is an ideology which only criticizes the social critics themselves, and seeks to return to the dominant paradigm as it was before the social critics entered the scene.
I'm saying we need more actual real contrarianism, not more meta contrarianism against the contrarians. It is useful to criticize things other than the Cathedral. I'm being a meta-meta-contrarian.
I think I'm a bit confused now.
Let's say Cathedral is mainstream. Then Moldbug is a contrarian. Then Yvain's anti-reactionary FAQ is contrarian against a contrarian. Are you saying we need more stuff like Yvain's FAQ?
Or do you want some actual direct criticism of an existing power structure, maybe something along these lines?
So the contrarian food chain goes
Mainstream America (bulk of the American population)
-> radical egalitarian critique of mainstream america (feminists, anti-racists, the Left, moldbug's "Cathedral")
-> Reactionary critique of egalitarian movements (Moldbug, Manosphere, human biodiversity, Dark enlightenment)
-> Critique of Reactionary anti-egalitarian stances (Yvain, this post).
I'm advocating good old-fashioned contrarianism - stuff like radical egalitarianism, sex positivism, etc.
(No, obviously, not along those lines - but yes, that link is at the correct level of contrarianism.)
OK. Let me try to sort this out.
We start with a base. You are saying this is the mainstream US which you understand to be conservative. So, level 0 -- US conservatives -- mainstream.
Level 1 is the Cathedral which is contrarian to level 0 and which is US liberals or progressives.
Level 2 are the neo-reactionaries who are contrarian to level 1 (Cathedral)
Level 3 is Yvain's FAQ which is contrarian to level 2 (Reactionaries).
So we are basically stacking levels where each level is explicitly opposed to the previous one and, obviously, all even layers are sympathetic to each other, as are all odd layers (I find the "meta-" terminology confusing since this word means other things to me, probably "anti-" would be better).
And what you want more of is level 1 stuff -- basically left-liberal critique of whatever stands in the way of progress, preferably on steroids.
Do I understand you right?
EDIT: LOL, you simplified your post right along the lines I was extracting out of it...
I don't mind hearing from any level, as long as things are well cited.
-I've sort of gotten bored with level 0, but that could change if I see a bunch of really well done level 0 content. I just don't often see very many insightful things coming from this level.
-Level 2 holds my interest because it's novel. When it's well cited, it really holds my interest. However, it seldom is well cited. That's okay though - the ideas are fun to play with.
-Level 1 is the level I agree with. However, because I'm very familiar with it and its supporting data, and I hate agreeing with things, it has to work a lot harder to hold my interest.
My perception is that level 2, for reasons described, gets more attention than it merits. The shock value, twisty narrative, and novelty of it make it more interesting to people like me, who like reading compelling arguments even if they don't completely agree. However, it drives away people who are emotionally affected and/or perceive that have something to protect from what would happen if those viewpoints were to gain traction.
I was suggesting that maybe increasing good level one posts, which weren't boring, echo-chamber-ish and obviously true to to most people on Lesswrong, would remedy this. (I'm taking the LW poll as indications that most LWers, like me, agree with Level 1)
Edit: Even layers are not necessarily sympathetic to each other, even if they are ideologically aligned. Mainstream conservatives would likely not be sympathetic to reactionary's open racism/sexism etc, and the impression I get is that reactionaries think mainstream conservatives are fighting a losing battle and aren't particularly bright. There's really only one Odd Layer, practically speaking, since Yvain is the only person on hypothetical layer 3.
Ah, sorry for the real time simplification! I realized I was writing spaghetti as soon as I looked it over.
I'm not sure that anything should be done about it, at least if we look at it from whole society's perspective. (Or rather, we should try to avoid the echo chamber effect if possible, but not at the cost of reducing dispassionate discussion.) If some places discuss sensitive issues dispassionately, then those places risk becoming echo chambers; but if no place does so, then there won't be any place for dispassionate discussion of those issues. I have a hard time believing that a policy that led to some issue only being discussed in emotionally charged terms would be a net good for society.
Wouldn't it be possible to minimize signaling given the same level of dispassionate discussion? That is, discourage use of highly emotionally charged/exosemantically heavy words/phrases if a less charged equivalent exists or can be coined and defined.
Say if you have a word X that means Y plus emotional connotation α and thede/memeplex/identity signaling effect β (not that emotional connotation is detached from the thedish/political/identity-wise context of the reader, of course), there's really no reason to use X instead of Y in dispassionate discussion. To give a concrete example, there's no reason to use 'sluttiness' (denotatively equivalent to 'sexual promiscuity' but carrying a generally negative connotational load, signaling against certain memeplexes/political positions/identities (though ideally readers here would read past the signaling load/repress the negative emotional response), and signaling identification with other positions/identities) instead of 'sexual promiscuity', which means the same thing but sheds all the emotional and thedish/tribal/whatever baggage.
(That shouldn't be read as an endorsement of the reasoning toward the same conclusion in the post, of course.)
I don't believe this is feasible. My impression is that emotional connotations inhere in things, not in words.
Over the decades, society has, over the decades, gone through a whole string of synonyms for "limited intelligence" -- none of which are emotionally neutral. Changing terms from "imbecile", to "retarded", "developmentally disabled" to "special needs", has just resulted in a steady turnover of playground insults. You can't make an insulting concept emotionally neutral, I think.
The two aren't contradictory: emotional connotations can inhere in things and words.
The euphemism treadmill is what you get when the emotional connotation inheres in a thing. But what emotional connotation inheres in 'sexual promiscuity'? Even if it is there (and its recommendation by someone sensitive enough to emotional connotations that inhere in words [from the perspective of a specific thede/tribe] seems to suggest that it isn't), certainly there's less negative connotation there than in 'sluttiness'.
Similarly, it's possible to find loaded equivalents, or at least approximations, for most (all?) of Mencius Moldbug's caste terms. (UR is a good place to mine for these sorts of pairs, since he coins emotionally neutral terms to replace, or at least approximate, emotionally loaded terms. Of course, if you use them, you're signaling that you've read Moldbug, but...)
I get the impression that we're already pretty much mostly discusing issues in a "less emotionally laden" way, avoiding shocking words,etc., no?
Yes, the complaint strikes me as "Stop saying things we don't like, it might lead to disapproved opinions being silenced!
Feminism in particular has a bad history of leaning on a community to make changes - to the point where the target becomes a feminist institution that no longer functions in its original capacity. I may be overreacting, but I don't even want to hear or discuss anything from that direction. It's textbook derailing. "But what you're doing is anti-woman" has been played out by feminists, over and over again, to get their demands met from community after community. From Atheism+ to Occupy Wall Street, the result is never pretty.
And honestly, attacking open discourse as anti-woman and anti-minority is very, uhh, squicky. I don't have a better way of putting my thoughts down on the matter - it's just very, very concerning to me. It feels like a Stalinist complaining that we aren't putting enough bullets in the heads of dissenters - except it's a feminist complaining that we aren't torpedoing the reputation of enough people who express "anti-woman" ideas. Just... ew. No. It doesn't help that this idea is getting obfuscated with layers and layers of complicated English and parenthetical thoughts breaking up the sentence structure.
Some choice quotes:
Big warning flag right here. It's threatening to ignore, ostracize, or attack those who disagree with their sacred cows. That's an unconscionably bad habit to allow oneself.
[later]
throws hand in air
You'd think if we were such hot stuff at dispassionately debating things, we could handle outgroup criticism like this without either ignoring opposing views or devolving into tribal politics. But as Tarski would say, "if we can't, I want to believe we can't," and I admit I'd rather not discuss this sort of thing than always discuss this sort of thing.
To maximize open discourse, you have to close down discourse against open discourse.
It's just Marcuse's paradox (which I'm pretty sure I'm coining here): to maximize tolerance, you have to be intolerant toward intolerance. Or in the legal arena: "the Constitution is not a suicide pact."
There are two arguments in that post: "certain elements within the rationality thing signal more than is necessary", the correction of which would aid the goal of generating high-quality open discourse, and "certain conclusions should not even be considered, certain arguments should not be made, no matter their strength, because certain people have memetic immune reactions to them that drive them away from participating at all", the correction of which would mean an end to open discourse. Given that ThrustVectoring (presumably) values open discourse, the response of "I don't even want to discuss anything from that direction" is exactly correct.
That doesn't mean that it can't be discussed, of course; it just means that a community that values open discourse can't discuss it. If apophemi wants there to be a community based around limited rationality -- that is, rationality-minus-discourse-about-certain-things -- well, one can always be started. Secession is always an option, and online, you don't even have to figure out how to build a seastead to secede.
Humorous, off-topic response: But the Declaration of Independence is!
Which argument is the blogger referring to? Does it make sense to have many kids in a high-scarcity society?
Yes, because many of them will die before adulthood; also, they will help you work in the fields.
Our caveman/cavewomen brains think that we will only ever interact with a very small number of people, and losing the respect of anyone could materially worsen our chances of survival in a crisis. Consequently, many are terrified of public speaking or even of contributing to Internet debates such as on LessWrong. I suspect that the lower you perceive your status to be in the tribe, the greater the fear you will have of further weakening your position by saying something that others criticize.
Some communities go out of their way to create "safe spaces" that limit criticism to attract participants who would otherwise be too fearful to join discussions. LW's implicit philosophy (which I don't disagree with) is that a cost of participating is that you are fair game for blunt criticism. Alas, such a philosophy probably repels some potential participants who would otherwise make intelligent comments.
I face a similar trade-off in my classes. (I teach at a women's college.) Giving honest/blunt feedback during class discussions or on papers can cause a very negative emotional reaction in some students. Interestingly, students who went to high school in Asia are much better (on average) than Americans at handling criticism because they got so much more of it in high school than their American counterparts did, but my Asian students are (on average) far more fearful of public speaking than Americans, because they did so much less of it.
Does it seem at all worrying that your explanation hinges on members of the in-group having a lot of positive characteristics that members of the out-group lack? "We're just too honest and unflinching in the face of criticism. If only the out-group were so gifted!"
There's probably more than one thing going on here; among them some evaporative cooling.