3 ms·

>rather the realization that some are dumber and some are smarter. What? You think that begins with _rationalism??_ The world is divided up into people who r

>rather the realization that some are dumber and some are smarter. What? You think that begins with _rationalism??_ The world is divided up into people who realize this and people who do not?--for that is what defining 'rationalist' in the context of people's self-identification attempts to do. Your definition leads right back to mine. Everyone realizes it. Everyone!

nkurz 16y ago
Yes, I do think that rationalism is intimately involved with self-doubt, and that many people are wholly unaware of the possibility that others with whom they disagree may be right rather than wrong. But I also think that there is such a thing as truth, and that it would be an error to believe that no one is stupid or acts irrationally. But possibly I just don't understand your point. Are you arguing against the precepts of LessWrong, or against the case that Kenneth is making showing its limitations? Are you arguing that rationality is (or should be) synonymous with evolutionary fitness rather than truth? That believing things that are factually true can be irrational? If you're up for watching depressing but incredibly insightful documentaries, I'd recommend "Stevie" (http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Stevie/60027209?trkid=2361637 http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Stevie/60027209?trkid=2361...) as one that might change your mind on whether "no one is stupid". It's a brilliant movie of stupid people making their way in the world, with as much grace as they can manage. The scary part for me was that the self-explanations of the (medically) retarded characters vacillate between sounding simplistic and fully aware. I think the rational conclusion would be that it's awfully hard to tell which rung one is standing on, and whether others are above or below it. But I don't think it would be rational to conclude that "everyone's pretty much the same".
- Helianthus16 16y ago
  Your third paragraph is correct and I'm confused why you thought it was contrary to my point. I'm not saying that no one has any trace of stupidity. I'm saying that the concept of stupidity-intelligence is not a binary, it is a gradient. What I'm arguing is that the question reveals its flaws, and the flaws of the lesswrong community. A member who self-identifies as part of that community is either being redundant by saying something about themselves that applies to every human being, or they are being elitist by implying that they have (or seek, and therefore have) some special understanding of the universe. This is illustrated because Kenneth is dividing the world into people who are right and wrong and wondering if being wrong can sometimes be right. It's nonsense, a question brought about by too much caring how right you can be.

nkurz 16y ago

Yes, I do think that rationalism is intimately involved with self-doubt, and that many people are wholly unaware of the possibility that others with whom they disagree may be right rather than wrong. But I also think that there is such a thing as truth, and that it would be an error to believe that no one is stupid or acts irrationally. But possibly I just don't understand your point. Are you arguing against the precepts of LessWrong, or against the case that Kenneth is making showing its limitations? Are you arguing that rationality is (or should be) synonymous with evolutionary fitness rather than truth? That believing things that are factually true can be irrational? If you're up for watching depressing but incredibly insightful documentaries, I'd recommend "Stevie" (http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Stevie/60027209?trkid=2361637 http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Stevie/60027209?trkid=2361...) as one that might change your mind on whether "no one is stupid". It's a brilliant movie of stupid people making their way in the world, with as much grace as they can manage. The scary part for me was that the self-explanations of the (medically) retarded characters vacillate between sounding simplistic and fully aware. I think the rational conclusion would be that it's awfully hard to tell which rung one is standing on, and whether others are above or below it. But I don't think it would be rational to conclude that "everyone's pretty much the same".

Helianthus16 16y ago
Your third paragraph is correct and I'm confused why you thought it was contrary to my point. I'm not saying that no one has any trace of stupidity. I'm saying that the concept of stupidity-intelligence is not a binary, it is a gradient. What I'm arguing is that the question reveals its flaws, and the flaws of the lesswrong community. A member who self-identifies as part of that community is either being redundant by saying something about themselves that applies to every human being, or they are being elitist by implying that they have (or seek, and therefore have) some special understanding of the universe. This is illustrated because Kenneth is dividing the world into people who are right and wrong and wondering if being wrong can sometimes be right. It's nonsense, a question brought about by too much caring how right you can be.