3 ms·

I think the underlying issue is that rationalists are wanna-be intellectuals: they want fancy-sounding jargon, but without the rigorous intellectual hard-work t

I think the underlying issue is that rationalists are wanna-be intellectuals: they want fancy-sounding jargon, but without the rigorous intellectual hard-work to back it up. (Not that most jargon is good in an academic context either, but at least there you can kinda see why it’s sometimes necessary) (The other reason might be because rationalism, at least recently, has been adjacent to crackpot racist phrenology ideas, and so has driven away contributions from most of the world, preventing them from branching out into the real world)

thotsBgone 6y ago
I think they tend to use a lot of fancy jargon because the jargon is actually really good, and there's no real replacement for it without circumlocution.
- boredumb 6y ago
  I'm not even sure if it was intended, but I chuckled reading the word `circumlocution`.
tyre 6y ago
On the other hand, maybe some people are interested in a type of reading/writing but that doesn't mean they could do it themselves. Like last night I watched the writer Jia Tolentino interview Chanel Miller (the woman who was raped by Brock Turner, if you're familiar with the case.) Watching Jia think in real time is magical to me. Her writing, too, is at times incisive, at others deeply personal, sometimes indignant or marveling or both, and can still pull back to culture/society level relevance. I would say that the best of Jia's longform writing is among the best narrative non-fiction being written today. Is there a part of me that wants to be able to do that? i.e. am I a wannabe? I mean, kind of, but I also really enjoy it and that's more the point. I enjoy Ren Hang's photography but am not trying to be a photographer. I enjoy helping founders but don't have much desire to found another company. We don't _have_ to assume that everyone who enjoys something only says that they do because they are status-obsessed and lazy. EDIT: Another example I would give is Daniel Day Lewis. Good god the length he goes to to method act; the almost terrifying commitment. And it fucking pays off. But do I want that life? Hell no. Because I'm lazy? Maybe if I wanted that life then work ethic would be a question, but what disqualifies my trying to be Daniel Day Lewis in the first place is that I don't want to make the trade-offs he does — even if I could.
Matticus_Rex 6y ago
Approximately none of this reflects my experiences with rationalists I've met through things other than LessWrong meetups, etc. If you define rationalism very narrowly to mean "the type of people that religiously attend LW/CFAR events because they aren't too busy for that," this may have elements of truth, but it's also intentionally excluding a lot of people who are meaningfully members of the rationalsphere.

thotsBgone 6y ago

I think they tend to use a lot of fancy jargon because the jargon is actually really good, and there's no real replacement for it without circumlocution.

boredumb 6y ago
I'm not even sure if it was intended, but I chuckled reading the word `circumlocution`.

tyre 6y ago

On the other hand, maybe some people are interested in a type of reading/writing but that doesn't mean they could do it themselves. Like last night I watched the writer Jia Tolentino interview Chanel Miller (the woman who was raped by Brock Turner, if you're familiar with the case.) Watching Jia think in real time is magical to me. Her writing, too, is at times incisive, at others deeply personal, sometimes indignant or marveling or both, and can still pull back to culture/society level relevance. I would say that the best of Jia's longform writing is among the best narrative non-fiction being written today. Is there a part of me that wants to be able to do that? i.e. am I a wannabe? I mean, kind of, but I also really enjoy it and that's more the point. I enjoy Ren Hang's photography but am not trying to be a photographer. I enjoy helping founders but don't have much desire to found another company. We don't _have_ to assume that everyone who enjoys something only says that they do because they are status-obsessed and lazy. EDIT: Another example I would give is Daniel Day Lewis. Good god the length he goes to to method act; the almost terrifying commitment. And it fucking pays off. But do I want that life? Hell no. Because I'm lazy? Maybe if I wanted that life then work ethic would be a question, but what disqualifies my trying to be Daniel Day Lewis in the first place is that I don't want to make the trade-offs he does — even if I could.

Matticus_Rex 6y ago

Approximately none of this reflects my experiences with rationalists I've met through things other than LessWrong meetups, etc. If you define rationalism very narrowly to mean "the type of people that religiously attend LW/CFAR events because they aren't too busy for that," this may have elements of truth, but it's also intentionally excluding a lot of people who are meaningfully members of the rationalsphere.