Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

moridinamael comments on Rationality Considered Harmful (In Politics) - Less Wrong Discussion

9 Post author: The_Jaded_One 08 January 2017 10:36AM

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

Comments (20)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: moridinamael 09 January 2017 04:49:25PM 4 points [-]

Not to be pedantic, but it was irrational for Aaronson to open his mouth about Feminism; Harris' approach may be rational given his stated aims, but his surprise at the reaction of his opponents is not rational; and talking about identitarian-adjacent topics like genetic modification without first carefully preparing the ground for discussion is going to risky.

(Unfortunately) the actual rationalist-who-wins is the one who goes about his ambitions like a good Slytherin and never publicly states his beliefs.

Comment author: The_Jaded_One 09 January 2017 05:29:08PM *  2 points [-]

(Unfortunately) the actual rationalist-who-wins is the one who goes about his ambitions like a good Slytherin and never publicly states his beliefs.

I think this is mostly true, though there are a few problems with "Slytherin Rationality".

it was irrational for Aaronson to open his mouth about Feminism

Suppose modern elevator-gate-y feminism operates a bit like a mafia protection racket: they (the feminists) cream off status and money for themselves by propagating a set of ideas that are clearly ridiculous, but they keep everyone in line by threatening to doxx and shame and generally destroy the reputation of anyone who challenges them. A small group of Rebecca Watsons could dominate a much larger group of Slytherin Rationalists if all the Slytherins aren't prepared to take even a small risk to stand up for what they believe in.

talking about identitarian-adjacent topics like genetic modification without first carefully preparing the ground for discussion is going to risky.

If you never talk about the things that you actually care about, you will never manage to find people who you want to be close friends and allies with.

You can "prepare the ground" to some extent, but really what that means is that you take the slow route to unfriending the person rather than the fast route. You want to hang around in your free time with someone who you have to constantly filter yourself around and construct elaborate lies for? I didn't think so....

Preparing the ground is probably best used on someone who you see as a means to something, for example you want to extract favors from them, get money or other contacts from them, etc.

Comment author: plethora 14 January 2017 10:40:07PM 1 point [-]

If you never publicly state your beliefs, how are you supposed to refine them?

But if you do publicly state your beliefs, the Rebecca Watsons can eat you, and if you don't, the Rebecca Watsons can coordinate against you.

How do you solve that?

"I believe that it's always important to exchange views with people, no matter what their perspectives are. I think that we have a lot of problems in our society and we need to be finding ways to talk to people, we need to find ways to talk to people where not everything is completely transparent. ... I think often you have the best conversations in smaller groups where not everything is being monitored. That's how you have very honest conversations and how you can think better about the future." -- Thiel on Bilderberg

Comment author: moridinamael 11 January 2017 10:27:47PM 0 points [-]

Suppose modern elevator-gate-y feminism operates a bit like a mafia protection racket: they (the feminists) cream off status and money for themselves by propagating a set of ideas that are clearly ridiculous, but they keep everyone in line by threatening to doxx and shame and generally destroy the reputation of anyone who challenges them. A small group of Rebecca Watsons could dominate a much larger group of Slytherin Rationalists if all the Slytherins aren't prepared to take even a small risk to stand up for what they believe in.

You're absolutely right. I don't know of any good coordinative solution to this that doesn't look more like people sticking their necks out and getting guillotined in sequence.

You can "prepare the ground" to some extent, but really what that means is that you take the slow route to unfriending the person rather than the fast route. You want to hang around in your free time with someone who you have to constantly filter yourself around and construct elaborate lies for? I didn't think so....

I find it's much easier to do this kind of thing in real life. If you really want to talk about some unusual belief, you can always calibrate your approach based on the initial position of the person you're trying to talk to. On the Internet (which is where this type of thing usually goes wrong) you're usually posting semi-contextualized text in public. It's almost doomed to failure.

Comment author: The_Jaded_One 12 January 2017 06:43:38AM *  1 point [-]

coordinative solution

Well it isn't as if this is the first time ever that humans have had to coordinate on something. The usual tricks would include creating anti-SJW movements, setting up an alternative status-structure with its own reward and punishment mechanisms, giving power and status to key people who challenge SJWs.