This seems very useful. Thank you for posting it.
Out of all of the blogs, which ones do you prioritize in reading first? It seems like there are far too many to always read all of them.
Several years ago, Alicorn wrote an article about how she hacked herself to be polyamorous. I'm interested in methods for hacking myself to be aromantic. I've had some success with this, so I'll share what's worked for me, but I'm really hoping you all will chime in with your ideas in the comments.
Why would someone want to be aromantic? There's the obvious time commitment involved in romance, which can be considerable. This is an especially large drain if you're in a situation where finding suitable partners is difficult, which means most of this time is spent enduring disappointment (e.g. if you're heterosexual and the balance of singles in your community is unfavorable).
But I think an even better way to motivate aromanticism is by referring you to this Paul Graham essay, The Top Idea in Your Mind. To be effective at accomplishing your goals, you'd like to have your goals be the most interesting thing you have to think about. I find it's far too easy for my love life to become the most interesting thing I have to think about, for obvious reasons.
After thinking some, I came up with a list of 4 goals people try to achieve through engaging in romance:
To remove the need for romance, it makes sense to find quicker and less distracting ways to achieve each of these 4 goals. So I'll treat each goal as a subproblem and brainstorm ideas for solving it. Subproblems 1 through 3 all seem pretty easy to solve:
Subproblem 4 seems trickiest.
I'll note that what I'm describing as "validation" or "romantic self-esteem" seems closely related to abundance mindset. But I think it's useful to keep them conceptually distinct. Although alieving that there are many people you could date is one way to boost your romantic self-esteem, it's not necessarily the only strategy.
The most important thing to keep in mind about your romantic self-esteem is that it's heavily affected by the availability heuristic. If I was encouraged by someone in 2015, that won't do much to assuage the sting of discouragement in 2016, except maybe if it happens to come to mind.
Another clue is the idea of a sexual "dry spell". Dry spells are supposed to get worse the longer they go on... which simply means that if your mind doesn't have a recent (available!) incident of success to latch on, you're more likely to feel down.
So to increase your romantic self-esteem, keep a cherished list of thoughts suggesting your desirability is high, and don't worry too much about thoughts suggesting your desirability is low. Here's a freebie: If you're reading this post, it's likely that you are (or will be) quite rich by global standards. I hear rich people are considered attractive. Put it on your list!
Other ideas for raising your romantic self-esteem:
I think this is a situation where prevention works better than cure--it's best to work pre-emptively to keep your romantic self-esteem high. In my experience, low romantic self-esteem leads to unproductive coping mechanisms like distracting myself from dark thoughts by wasting time on the Internet.
The other side of the coin is avoiding hits to your romantic self-esteem. Here's an interesting snippet from a Quora answer I found:
In general specialized contemplative monastic organisations that tend to separate from the society tend to be celibate while ritual specialists within the society (priests) even if expected to follow a higher standard of ethical and ritual purity tend not to be.
So, it seems like it's easier for heterosexual male monks to stay celibate if they are isolated on a monastery away from women. Without any possible partners around, there's no one to reject (or distract) them. Participating in a monastic culture in which long-term singlehood is considered normal & desirable also removes a romantic self-esteem hit.
Retreating to a monastery probably isn't practical, but there may be simpler things you can do. I recently switched from lifting weights to running in order to get exercise, and I found that running is better for my concentration because I'm not distracted by attractive people at the gym.
I shared a bunch of ideas in this post. But my overall impression is that instilling aromanticism is a very hard problem. Based on my research, even monks and priests have a difficult time of things. That's why I'm curious to hear what the Less Wrong community can come up with. Side note: when possible, please try to make your suggestions gender-neutral so we can avoid gender-related flame wars. Thanks!
This seems very useful. Thank you for posting it.
Out of all of the blogs, which ones do you prioritize in reading first? It seems like there are far too many to always read all of them.
I think most update pretty infrequently, which makes RSS a good solution.
but was lucky enough
You really think it was just luck that BM didn't get a "cult" label and LW did..?
I did not mean to say that it was "just" luck, but of course luck played a role (as it always does).
You know what else exemplifies "mild cult behavior"? Burning Man!
No, I don't think it does. Burning Man is an event and a community. I don't see any cultish tendencies around it.
I was being sarcastic. My point was that the "cult" label can be hard to shake whether or not it's deserved--I analogized to Burning Man since it shares characteristics with LW, but was lucky enough to avoid getting labeled a "cult".
I've said it before and I've said it again - this is mild cult behavior.
... That being said, bring on the low cost gratification! I've taken the survey!
Fun traditions might be undignified by the standards of academia, but they're perfectly normal in many other social contexts (small company, group house, etc.)
You know what else exemplifies "mild cult behavior"? Burning Man! They give each other physical gifts instead of imaginary internet gifts. Even more problematic.
If you are willing to define "cult" broadly enough, you can use the term to shut down any kind of cultural development. (Of course, cultural development that's already happened will get grandfathered in, the same way we don't call religions "cults" because they are too dignified and established.)
Agreed on all points.
LW was one handshake away from DeepMind, we interviewed Shane Legg and referred to his work many times. But I guess we didn't have the right attitude, maybe still don't. Now is probably a good time to "halt, melt and catch fire" as Eliezer puts it.
I'm confused what you would have done with the benefit of hindsight (beyond having folks like Jaan Tallin and Elon Musk who were concerned with AI safety become investors in DeepMind, which was in fact done).
to receive recognition for being a good person
Let me rephrase it as 'I can buy the status of "a good person"'. Still fine?
http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_noncentral_fallacy_the_worst_argument_in_the/
You're arguing by analogy: http://lesswrong.com/lw/vx/failure_by_analogy/ and trying to do guilt by association. It's an appeal to emotion, not reason.
Literally every other website on the internet will allow bad arguments like this... are you sure you don't want to hang out somewhere else? Seriously, give it some thought.
The purpose of market segmentation is to maximize revenue :-/
It seems like a valid application to me if one takes people to be paying some kind of cost in terms of their time and money in order to receive recognition for being a good person. You would like people to be able to spend a moderate amount of time and money to receive a moderate amount of recognition, and a large amount of time and money to receive a large amount of recognition. Having terms for different levels could help with this.
"Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" is good advice.
There's no reason to shut down the entire forum if the problems can be solved with less collateral damage.
Having participated in online communities which would somewhat regularly get made fun of by others, I'm not sure I agree that others making fun of an online community tarnishes its reputation in the general population. Seems to me that most people aren't aware of the people making fun of the community. I think dishonest representations with wider distribution are much more harmful, e.g., RationalWiki's take on LessWrong. And we should do something about that, but again, I don't think shutting down the forum is the right approach.
Also, I tend to ignore farewell posts like that. In my experience, they happen regardless of the "health" of the community. I can think of one online community I've participated in that regularly has such threads, despite activity being at an all time high. They can describe real problems which should be fixed, but often don't.
Seems to me that most people aren't aware of the people making fun of the community.
One thing that can happen is that there will be an anti-community that springs up around making fun of the original community, and then a journalist will write a story about the community that the anti-community will discover and leave negative comments on (or the journalist will discover the anti-community and write a story on its existence--remember that journalists are strongly incentivized to drive pageviews).
Until LessWrong 2.0 comes out, this is how I've been staying in touch with the Rationalist Diaspora. It took about an hour to set up and I can now see almost everything in the one place.
I've been using an RSS reader (I use feedly) to collate RSS feeds from these lists,
Rationist Blogs,
https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/List_of_Blogs
https://www.reddit.com/r/RationalistDiaspora/
Effective Altruist Blogs,
http://www.stafforini.com/blog/effective-altruism-blogs/
Rationalist Tumblers,
http://yxoque.tumblr.com/RationalistMasterlist
And using this twitter to RSS tool for these LessWrong Twitters,
http://lesswrong.com/lw/d92/less_wrong_on_twitter/
This system is unsatisfying in a number of ways the two most obvious to me being 1) I don't know of any way to integrate the Rationalists on Facebook into this system and 2) Upvotes from places that use them like LW or r/rational aren't displayed. Nevertheless it is still much simpler for me to be notified of new material. If anyone has suggestions on improvements or wants to share how they follow the Diaspora that'd be most welcome.
Trying to think of what's not on this list:
The EA forum sometimes has insightful posts, mostly EA news
Givewell and Open Philanthropy Project blogs
http://nickbostrom.com
/r/slatestarcodex, /r/LessWrong, /r/HPMoR, /r/smartgiving, /r/effectivealtruism, /r/rational
Thing of Things (Ozy's blog)
Topher's blog URL is now http://topherhallquist.wordpress.com
http://thefutureprimaeval.net is a group blog by a few ex-LWers I believe
You could probably dig up more by looking through the blogrolls of the blogs you've already identified. For example, Scott Aaronson considers himself part of the rationalist blogosphere and is listed on the SlateStarCodex sidebar.
Andrew Critch's blog is great
PredictionBook, Omnilibrium
Of course there are lots of Facebook groups (especially EA-related Facebook groups) and Facebook personalities, notably Eliezer
Somewhere I got the impression that HBD Chick and Sarah Perry of Ribbonfarm were LWers at some point. There's also the "post-rationalist" community which includes sites like Melting Asphalt.
Scott's community map
Many of these update infrequently, making it bothersome to check all of them. I'll bet it wouldn't be very hard to create a single site that lets you see what's new across the entire diaspora (including LW) by combining all these RSS feeds in to something like http://lesswrong.com/r/all/recentposts/ Could be a fun webdev project. Register a domain for it and put it on your resume.