= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
What is "religious society"? (I'm in particular confused about it being something such that one probably has a choice about whether to live in it or not.)
I think this sort of thing works differently in my country (Israel) than it does in other places. Because religious and secular societies are more segregated, it's fairly common for people to affiliate themselves with a particular group due to the community's norms, customs or values rather than religious belief.
In response to
Open thread, Oct. 20 - Oct. 26, 2014
The Rationalist Community: Catching Up to Speed
Note: the below comment is intended for my friend(s) who is/are not on Less Wrong yet, or presently, as an explanation of how the rationality community has changed in the interceding years between when Eliezer Yudkowsky finished writing his original sequences, and 2014. This is an attempt to bridge procedural knowledge gaps. Long-time users, feel free to comment below with suggestions for changes, or additions.
Off of Less Wrong, the perspective of the rationality community has changed in light of the research, and expansion of horizon, by the Center For Applied Rationality. A good start introduction to these changes is found in the essay Three Ways CFAR Has Changed My View of Rationality written by Julia Galef, the president of the CFAR.
On Less Wrong itself, Scott Alexander has written what this community of users has learned together in an essay aptly titled Five Years and One Week of Less Wrong.
The Decline of Less Wrong was a discussion this year about why Less Wrong has declined, where the rationalist community has moved, and what should, or shouldn't be done about it. If that interests you, the initial post is great, and there is some worthy insight in the comments as well.
However, if you want to catch up to speed right now, then check out the epic Map of the Rationalist Community from Slate Star Codex.
For a narrower focus, you can search the list of blogs on the Less Wrong wiki, which are sorted alphabetically by author name, and have a short list of topics each blog typically covers.
Finally, if you're (thinking of getting) on Tumblr, check out the Rationalist Masterlist which is a collated list of Tumblrs from (formerly) regular contributors to Less Wrong, and others who occupy the same memespace
As a newbie around here: thank you, this is quite helpful.
In response to
Open thread, Oct. 20 - Oct. 26, 2014
So we have lots of guides on how to be rational... but do we have any materials that consider what makes a person decide to pursue rationality and consciously decide to adopt rationality as an approach to life?
Recently I was talking to someone and realised they didn't accept that a rational approach was always the best one, and it was harder than I expected to come up with an argument that would be compelling for someone that didn't think rationality was all that worthwhile... not neccessarily irrational, but just not a conscious follower/advocate of it. I think a lot of the arguments for it are actually quite philosophical or in some people's case mathematical. Got me thinking, what actually turns someone into a rationality fan? A rational argument? Oh wait....
I've got some ideas, but nothing I'd consider worth writing down at this stage... is there anything to prevent wheel reinvention?
When explaining/arguing for rationality with the non-rational types, I have to resort to non-rational arguments. This makes me feel vaguely dirty, but it's also the only way I know of to argue with people who don't necessarily value evidence in their decision making. Unsurprisingly, many of the rationalists I know are unenthused by these discussions and frequently avoid them because they're unpleasant. It follows that the first step is to stop avoiding arguments/discussions with people of alternate value systems, which is really just a good idea anyway.
Not a good analogy. Something that works and reliably gives its users comparative advantage (such as science) shouldn't need a mechanism to keep alive an "essential message". Institutions to teach it, and to keep it clean, yes: but those are universities, not religions.
And universities, once established, also tend to be extremely durable. They just haven't been around for thousands of years yet. But while they have, many more newly-founded religions than universities have died.
Universities are not a good example of the institutions he was talking about. Durability isn't the only important factor. One of the main strengths of religious institutions is their sheer pervasiveness; by inserting itself into every facet of life, religion ensures that its disciples can't stray too far from the path without being reminded of it. Universities, sadly, are not capable of this level of involvement in the lives of communities or individuals.
In this case, rationality should seek to emulate religion by creating institutions and thus a lifestyle that makes its ideas pervasive. For example, if you could attend weekly lectures at your local "rationality church" or have those better at the art of rationality available to guide you the way priests guide Christians, becoming and staying a rationalist would be much easier and thus more accessible to the populace. This already sort of happens through the internet and meetups, but what religion has is a proven formula that builds communities around ideas, and we can definitely learn from it.
In response to
Group Rationality Diary, October 16-31
Until very recently I believed that I was completely anti-religious and took the opposing view to religion whenever the choice presented itself. I participated in a discussion on the topic and found myself making arguments I didn't actually agree with. This was mostly due to several habits I've been practicing to make me better at analyzing my own beliefs, most notably running background checks on any arguments I make to see where exactly in my brain they originate and constantly looking for loopholes in my arguments.
Because of this experience I've come to understand that most of my beliefs about religion were more based on color politics than any rational thought processes. Since breaking out of religious thinking itself a few years ago I'd simply been aligning my beliefs with the more anti-religious side of the atheist movement.
For example, where I once automatically looked down on the choice to live in religious society, regardless of personal religious belief, I've come to realize that I actually think of this decision as more of a lifestyle choice than a religious one, and thus undeserving of my baseless criticism.
View more: Prev
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Let's call them "people".
You're right, that was uncalled for and I retract that statement.