5 ms·

Can you elaborate on why this article drives you to think that? As someone with no stake in the issue (aware of LessWrong but not much else) I found it very in

Can you elaborate on why this article drives you to think that? As someone with no stake in the issue (aware of LessWrong but not much else) I found it very interesting and well written and it made me want to immerse myself more in the rationalist community which I found appealing. There was definitely an angle to this piece, like any piece, but I found it only slightly unbalanced. The unbalance was situated at the judgement of SSC's action of deleting the blog which clearly the reporter didn't view favorably. Further thinking about it, I would not be surprised if the NewYorker writer collaborated with the NYT reporter on the piece. Taking in account when the blog deletion happened I don't see how the reporter could have done his research on the nature of the blog to such detail without the NYT reporter's material.

zozbot234 6y ago
It's not that hard to do research wrt. the blog if you're a dedicated person; many people have made archives available.
zucker42 6y ago
The problems with the article that I perceive: 1. It makes claims about the SSC readership and the rationalist community intended to invoke an emotional response with little verifiable evidence. > This plea conformed with the online persona he has publicly cultivated over the years—that of a gentle headmaster preparing to chaperone a rambunctious group of boys on a museum outing 2. It's overly general in how it addresses people involved; it tends to conflate very different people connected by little more than their professed belief in using evidence to make decisions and examining their preconceptions. Using a rationalist psychologist as representative of "Silicon Valley" is evidence of this point. I may be influenced by the fact the fact that I have a good friend who is an avowed rationalist and I don't believe the broad strokes generalizations in the article represented him. Also, it fails to grasp what I perceive as the main reason for Alexander's blog takedown, which I think is merely a game theory influenced attempt to prevent the NYT from printing his name, rather than anything more grand.

zozbot234 6y ago

It's not that hard to do research wrt. the blog if you're a dedicated person; many people have made archives available.

zucker42 6y ago

The problems with the article that I perceive: 1. It makes claims about the SSC readership and the rationalist community intended to invoke an emotional response with little verifiable evidence. > This plea conformed with the online persona he has publicly cultivated over the years—that of a gentle headmaster preparing to chaperone a rambunctious group of boys on a museum outing 2. It's overly general in how it addresses people involved; it tends to conflate very different people connected by little more than their professed belief in using evidence to make decisions and examining their preconceptions. Using a rationalist psychologist as representative of "Silicon Valley" is evidence of this point. I may be influenced by the fact the fact that I have a good friend who is an avowed rationalist and I don't believe the broad strokes generalizations in the article represented him. Also, it fails to grasp what I perceive as the main reason for Alexander's blog takedown, which I think is merely a game theory influenced attempt to prevent the NYT from printing his name, rather than anything more grand.