3 ms·

>I'll leave it without argument that "stupidity" should not in general be a desirable state. I'm not saying we should question the concept of stupidity, I'm sa

>I'll leave it without argument that "stupidity" should not in general be a desirable state. I'm not saying we should question the concept of stupidity, I'm saying that self-identifying as a rationalist is like self-identifying as a human--that is to say, it's redundant. And if it isn't redundant, then it's elevating your personal rationality above others.

Jach 16y ago
Ahh.. As to redundancy, is there a case to be made that all or most self-identification reduces to self-identifying as a human? (After all, we're the only species (we know of) that self-identify with some word...) If not all self-identification is redundant, then surely many forms of self-identification could be made to be elevating your personal self above others? (Never mind whether it's your personal rationality or your personal programming language preference.) I guess I'm not seeing your point on this. Why pick on rationalists? Because they think they're smarter and not supposed to fall into the traps of lazy/empty-labeling and social signaling? I'm reminded of http://xkcd.com/774/ http://xkcd.com/774/
- Helianthus16 16y ago
  I reject your case. Self-identification isn't even necessarily something that's public. It's as much a question of who you are to yourself. Self-identification is a broad topic. Sports fans create opposition with other self-identified fans for the sheer hell of it. Crack addicts self-identify. Being married is a joint self-identification. In any case, the redundancy is meant to force the argument to the other definition. My prime point is not that they think they're smart, it's that they're trying to sort people into valid/invalid thinking bins. And as a side note, there's something very wrong with thinking that social signaling or labeling is a trap.

3 ms·

>I'll leave it without argument that "stupidity" should not in general be a desirable state. I'm not saying we should question the concept of stupidity, I'm sa

by Helianthus16 16y ago

Jach 16y ago
Ahh.. As to redundancy, is there a case to be made that all or most self-identification reduces to self-identifying as a human? (After all, we're the only species (we know of) that self-identify with some word...) If not all self-identification is redundant, then surely many forms of self-identification could be made to be elevating your personal self above others? (Never mind whether it's your personal rationality or your personal programming language preference.) I guess I'm not seeing your point on this. Why pick on rationalists? Because they think they're smarter and not supposed to fall into the traps of lazy/empty-labeling and social signaling? I'm reminded of http://xkcd.com/774/ http://xkcd.com/774/
- Helianthus16 16y ago
  I reject your case. Self-identification isn't even necessarily something that's public. It's as much a question of who you are to yourself. Self-identification is a broad topic. Sports fans create opposition with other self-identified fans for the sheer hell of it. Crack addicts self-identify. Being married is a joint self-identification. In any case, the redundancy is meant to force the argument to the other definition. My prime point is not that they think they're smart, it's that they're trying to sort people into valid/invalid thinking bins. And as a side note, there's something very wrong with thinking that social signaling or labeling is a trap.