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

Comment author: HBDfan 17 July 2015 02:24:52PM 0 points [-]

Dawkins, The Greatest Show On Earth

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 24 December 2007 07:06:34PM 29 points [-]

ScentOfViolets: Yes, the Greeks mistranslated "young woman" to "virgin" in the Septuagint. Standard story.

LemmusLemmus: I was never a Christian, so I don't bear the same deep abiding grudge that I do against Judaism for alienating my family from me.

But why should I be more fond of religion than of any other massively self-destructive folly?

And if you're shocked by my blaspheming the Virgin Mary, you may have some traces of reverence left that you need to get rid of. I mean seriously, think about the storyline here. Alleged virgin. Pregnant. "God did it."

The way this post got started was that I was talking to a friend recently who had been exposed to an attempted conversion by Scientology, and he was shaking his head in wonder. And then he said, "I don't understand how Scientology converts anyone, it's so ridiculous. At least the Christian religion has a powerful story. You can see how people would be converted by that."

I said to him, "I don't see that one story is any less ridiculous than the other. You're an atheist now, but you were raised as a Christian, right? You grew up being told about Christian beliefs, but not Scientologist beliefs. You may not realize how the Christian story sounds if you're not raised thinking it's normal. I mean, consider the Virgin Mary -"

Comment author: HBDfan 12 July 2015 11:06:51PM 0 points [-]

This explains the post well.

Comment author: adamzerner 19 June 2015 06:04:18PM *  0 points [-]

Consider the question: why is there such a stigma associated with rationality?

My impression is that it's because rationality is so general. Well, I don't think that's the only reason, but I think it plays a big role.

Think about it:

  • There's no stigma associated with trying to be more knowledgeable by, say studying history.
  • There's no stigma associated with self improvement. Say, wanting to be more confident.
  • There's no stigma associated with... getting in better shape.
  • There's no stigma associated with wanting to help people.

But there is with rationality. Maybe it's because all of those other things are narrow enough that it's not seen as an attempt to be "better" than others. But since rationality is so general, it is seen as an attempt to be "better" than others.

Of course, the term "better" can be broken into components, and it isn't so black and white. But my impression is that other people see it as black and white. Sort of - I think they see it as if there's some sort of threshold where if you cross it, you enter the domain of "better is black and white, and you're trying to be better than everyone else".

Comment author: HBDfan 20 June 2015 10:18:45AM 0 points [-]

There is resentment of thinking. You are smarter and you know more so you are offensive to them.

Comment author: Alicorn 08 June 2015 07:27:28PM *  22 points [-]

I think this post misses a lot of the scope and timing of the Less Wrong diaspora. A lot of us are on Tumblr now; I've made a few blog posts at the much more open group blog Carcinisation, there's a presence on Twitter, and a lot of us just have made social friendships with enough other rationalists that the urge to post for strangers has a pressure release valve in the form of discussing whatever ideas with the contents of one's living room or one's Facebook friends.

The suggestions you list amount to "ask Scott to give up his private resource for a public good, even though if what he wanted to do was post on a group blog he still has a LW handle", "somehow by magic increase readership of the EA forum", and "restructure LW to entice the old guard back, even though past attempts have disintegrated into bikeshedding and a low level of technical assistance from the people behind the website's actual specs". These aren't really "solutions".

Comment author: HBDfan 10 June 2015 11:10:57PM 0 points [-]

Is there directory of LessWrong Tumblr?

Comment author: HBDfan 25 May 2015 10:43:07AM 14 points [-]

What has happened to Metamed? Their site is down :-( http://www.metamed.com

Comment author: someonewrongonthenet 21 November 2014 11:37:30PM 2 points [-]

Oh good, does this mean the ban on talking about that been lifted while I was gone?

Comment author: HBDfan 22 November 2014 10:39:10PM 0 points [-]

The Basilisk is a waste of effort to consider. We have many, many real life problems to write about.

Comment author: someonewrongonthenet 19 November 2014 11:21:01PM *  9 points [-]

Neoreaction confuses me so much.

On one hand, interesting, and seemingly true and useful ideas about the nature of memetic drift and the role of the university, the pitfalls of attempting subversion of the dominance heirarchy, the virtues of handing certain things over to an elite, the flaws of democracy, the virtues of homogeneous communities, the virtues of particularism, and so on.

On the other hand, I'm unable to understand the logical steps from that to "and therefore white is the best race, patriarchy is a better system, the Enlightenment was misguided, we need a single dictator, let's bring back the Victorians and King Leopold"

I think I could call myself a neoreactionary if the meta-principles were applied without the object-level principles. I'd say the "elites" I support are the maligned "liberal elites" of the university, the "particularism" I support is my particular mostly egalitarian Enlightenment values.

If I let myself give in to the psychogical feelings that NRx, particularist, anti-egaltarian arguments stir within my heart, I get "Ra ra let's patriotically beat the tribal drums of the Nerdy Liberal Elite's superiority over the superstitious, non-egalitarian, cognitively inferior out-group as we are clearly the natural rulers". (I don't actually think this, I'm describing the mechanisms of the tribal sentiment. When NRx's make sensible arguments about natural rulers taking over and establishing heirchy, I nod along, but I'm naturally imagining lefty sex positive pseudo-egalitarian academic people like myself at the top of that heirarchy implementing horrifyingly progressive ideas and producing equality in opportunity and comfort, if not raw decision making power, for those who cooperate. I certainly don't imagine the White Male Christian King Leopold types ruling anything, and if they did rule I'd see it as rightful inevitable natural law that they be displaced by my own tribe, which will tend to succeed anyway because it is smarter and better.)

...as far as I can tell that's pretty much NRx, except that I'm applying the principles to my own in group (which is what you're actually supposed to do AFAIK, except for that my own in-group isn't the NRx in-group), which makes it not NRx at all?

If anything, if I put on my Neoreactionary-Lefty hat I see the NRx-conservatives as the pesky revolutionaries who are not following their own advice, going against what is clearly the natural order of things, let's ban them from our forums and socially shame them for Triggering and Being Offensive so as to not pollute our homogenized monoculture. It's only with my Enlightenment-Lefty hat's "free speech/principle of charity/tolerance/diversity's advantages outweigh drawbacks" memeplex (which ultimately wins out) that I see any reason to entertain to them or give them space to do the whole metacontrarian skit with in the first place - at least concerning the race/sex stuff. I'm perfectly happy taking the meta stuff, it's great.

This is sort of paradoxical, because if I assumed the NRx-Lefty's attitude from the start I would never have heard of NRx, whereas Enlightenment-Lefty's attitude risks conversion to NRx-Lefty after exposure. I'm not sure which hat-viewpoint this fact is an argument for.

Comment author: HBDfan 22 November 2014 10:28:25PM -1 points [-]

I am not white. If you do not believe race realism then you are equivalent to creationist. There is no magic in evolution.

Comment author: MichaelAnissimov 20 November 2014 08:54:29PM 8 points [-]

In reference to your first comment, basically yes.

1) The only reason I joined this thread in the first place is because someone attacked me, I don't particularly advocate neoreaction among LW groups, because I understand the community is hyper-liberalized to the point of absurdity.

2) Yes, my estimates of when the Singularity will occur moved from 2030-2040 to 2070-2080 over the last five years. This change is partially what has caused the neoreaction thing. I think there is a real risk that Western civilization will fall apart before we get there.

Comment author: HBDfan 21 November 2014 12:52:55AM 0 points [-]

The LW tone has improved this year and this post is refreshing.

Comment author: bramflakes 19 November 2014 11:44:02PM 20 points [-]

I read about HBD first and then NRx second. I couldn't have a sensible conversation about it with anybody I knew due to the prevailing progressive memeplex - for example, my History teacher once claimed that war was nonexistent in pre-agriculture societies due to it being economically unsustainable (I just about managed to avoid giving myself a concussion from slamming my head on the table). I knew cracks were appearing in the Narrative after I read the Blank Slate, and I knew I had to jettison it entirely once I finished The Bell Curve.

But what to replace it with? Mainstream conservatism was as clueless as progressivism, and while individual libertarians might have had the right mindset to discuss the issue if you framed it the right way, their answers were unsatisfying. Then one day, someone on LW linked to Moldbug - and here suddenly was a whole other narrative that made a lot more sense. It wasn't about HBD as such, but an account of the Progressive idea machine that explained why it was so taboo. I toyed with some of the weirder aspects for a while (Patchwork and Corporate Governance) but eventually gave them up for similar reasons to libertarianism (in a word: too spergy).

I wouldn't call myself a Neoreactionary. My beliefs are somewhere in between paleocon and the Traditionalist branch of NRx. In an entirely separate part of my brain there's also an active transhumanist who is annoyed that this contrarian upstart is getting all the cognitive attention, and Annisimov's early post about transhumanist/NRx synthesis hasn't properly bridged the gap. I don't know what I'll believe in a year or two.

Comment author: HBDfan 20 November 2014 10:02:03PM *  3 points [-]

Libertarianism is insufficient as most people will be led easily. They will not take freedom. Freedom is hard work, freedom is frightening. Neoreaction follows from libertarianism with a more secure possible future. Technology provides wealth and being with your group provides security in society.

Comment author: [deleted] 20 November 2014 04:36:22AM 10 points [-]

That being said, there's ample discussion already on Slate Star Codex, and I wouldn't want to see it crowding out other topics here.

I keep hearing people say this. This is a rationalist site; why hasn't anyone gone out and generated some statistics?

Comment author: HBDfan 20 November 2014 01:07:09PM *  -1 points [-]

I'm pleased to see more neoreaction here. This post makes me confident to come back.

Lesswrong needs to use rationality to speak out against the social justice warriors more. We need more rationalists to explain Gamergate and other initiatives. SSC and Ozy come out in favor of Gamergate and Eron Gjoni for example. Politics need not be the mind killer with showing sufficient working.

View more: Next