6 ms·

Downvote away, but I really don't understand why psuedo-intellectuals who write pretentious posts full of meaningless nonsense are so popular on HackerNews. Th

by bedobi 6y ago

Downvote away, but I really don't understand why psuedo-intellectuals who write pretentious posts full of meaningless nonsense are so popular on HackerNews. This guy runs a psychiatry called "Lorien", lives in a group-housing-community called "Valinor", and spams "rationalist" neckbeard blog posts on the internet. Does that seem like a well-adjusted individual you would entrust your treatment resistant depression, let alone mental health in general to? I don't know about you, but to me it seems like a comical case of the psychiatrist being the one who's in need of help. + psychiatry and mental health aside, are his opinions on all the countless fields and topics he writes about (in implied expert capacity) worth listening to? Keep in mind, each of those fields and topics have plenty of actual experts to go around. (eg in Economics, take a pick from the dozens of top economists in the IGM Expert panel https://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel https://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel)

DaniloDias 6y ago
It’s clear you don’t like it. It’s weird that you are mad others do. In what way does it traumatize you that other people like and shared a thing?
- bedobi 6y ago
  I really don't like it. I'm not mad others like things I don't. I guess what does bug me is, the type of people who generate and like this kind of drivel have a strong tendency to walk around thinking they know better than Literally Everyone(tm), while not realizing they themselves in fact know next to nothing about all these fields and topics, and are themselves really no better than anti-vaxxers or chrystal healers - they'll literally just make up and believe anything as long as it comes with the right labels and has a certain air of what they perceive as rationality to it. For some reason, the HackerNews and Tech scene in general are very susceptible to this. (techies share the bizarre hubris of thinking they know better than everyone at everything, and can improve and "disrupt" any field) Economics and health care especially are apparently "solved" fields where literally every one of these people are actually hidden gem PhD level experts. If you think I'm exaggerating, ask them a question about economics or health care, and listen as they "expertly" explain Everything(tm) to you. Ffs, even the label "rationalist" itself is pathetic, and very revealing. It's basically a way to signal "I am right, take my word for it".
  - DaniloDias 6y ago
    Sir, this is a Wendy’s.
  - icebergonfire 6y ago
    > If you think I'm exaggerating, ask them a question about economics or health care, and listen as they "expertly" explain Everything(tm) to you. In my circles "rationalist" is widely used to describe a person who holds opinions as "untainted" by emotions as a human could possibly have them. Meaning there is a describeable chain of independently-verifiable rational facts that take you from A to B, yet they are not married to the conclusion and you can reason them out of their positions if you can spot a hole in the process. And no, not a single one of the people I know would dare pretend they know better than experts in the field. They might ask informed questions and poke around using their "standard" logic brain-instruments, but they mind their tone and proyect relentless curiosity instead of hubris. I am sure that people can abuse this thought-technology to peddle bullshit or to proyect an image of being all-knowing entites. In my case stumbling across LessWrong and later on SlateStarCodex got me started on trying to decouple emotions from the reality that causes them. It has helped me immensely in my never-ending quest to try to be the best possible version of myself. > Ffs, even the label "rationalist" itself is pathetic, and very revealing. It's basically a way to signal "I am right, take my word for it". That sounds abrassive to me and I wouldn't want to talk with that kind of people either, whatever labels they are wielding at the moment. I wonder if there is a cultural-bubble effect at play here, or if I have been lucky to not encounter them just yet.
hcta 6y ago
Huh? This just seems like a bunch of name-calling. > I don't know about you, but to me it seems like a comical case of the psychiatrist being the one who's in need of help. In what way? Can you spell it out a little? What about "Lorien", "Valinor" and rationalist blog posts indicates a problem?
- bedobi 6y ago
  Even the label "rationalist" itself is pathetic, and very revealing. It's basically a way to signal "I am right, take my word for it". And no, while I enjoyed reading and watching the lord of the rings as much as anyone, I'm very confident most people would agree that the type of person who surrounds themselves with other hardcore Tolkien fans and makes subtle Tolkien references in everyday life don't tend to be what you'd call the most well-adjusted people. I just realized both the previous and the new name of his blog is an anagram of his name. Again, this sends a certain signal, which is evidently very appealing to a lot of people, but to me screams "run".
  - ccarterlandis 6y ago
    How is "rationalist" pathetic? What's it's revealing of? In what ways does it signal that he's right? Did you even read why he uses that term? [0] > the type of person who surrounds themselves with other hardcore Tolkien fans and makes subtle Tolkien references in everyday life don't tend to be what you'd call the most well-adjusted people Yeah, God forbid I surround myself with people who really enjoy similar things as me and like to make references to pop culture. That would just be so unbearable! You must be a lot of fun at Comic-Con. I don't think most people would agree with you here, and it just makes you sound absolutely insufferable to be around. > I just realized both the previous and the new name of his blog is an anagram of his name. Again, this sends a certain signal I want to believe so badly that you're trolling here. I don't understand how or why using an anagram of your name sends any sort of "signal", it's just a fun way to come up with a name that means nothing. This might be one of the biggest reaches for something to be angry about that I've seen in a long time. [0]: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/youre-probably-wondering-why-ive https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/youre-probably-wonderi... EDIT: fixed a typo
AYBABTME 6y ago
Here's why I think the author is interesting. Their writing style is easy to read, flows well, is funny, and brings up and applies interesting concepts. And here's why your comment is interesting: in calling the author a pseudo-intellectual who writes pretentiously, you're actually taking a pretentious position, judging the author's value based on your belief of what is good taste, what is an expert, and what makes for a well-adjusted individual. And that's interesting, exhibiting the features exactly as you criticize them.
reducesuffering 6y ago
“Psuedo-intellectual?” I’d spell pseudo right before criticizing someone that way. You can disagree with Scott and think he’s wrong all you want. Still, I have difficulty believing you truly think his writing isn’t bounds more intellectual, across a wide breadth of topics, than most people professing anything deemed intellectual.
ccarterlandis 6y ago
> psuedo-intellectuals This is so deliciously ironic. > runs a psychiatry called "Lorien", lives in a group-housing-community called "Valinor" Um...okay? What's your point? That those are funny names? No one gives a damn what they're called, and I fail to see what the problem is with running a psychiatry or living in a housing community. Do you also hate on ophthalmologists that run their own firms and college students living in community dorms too? Or what about all those monks and nuns that live in group housing and also practice medicine? Nothing about either of those things implies any amount of instability, or lack of adjustment. > are his opinions on all the countless fields and topics he writes about (in implied expert capacity) worth listening to? I don't think anyone is arguing that Scott is necessarily an expert of many of the subjects he covers, least of all himself. I think he's made it abundantly clear over the years that this is a side gig for him that he does for fun, and do broaden his understanding of the world. Even if he isn't an "expert", that doesn't mean he can't still do research and blog about it. Do you think that no one should ever talk or write about anything that they are not a world-class expert in? Cause that sounds really, really boring, and also basically impossible. From the first post on his new blog[0]: > And finally, the highlight of my last blog was its loyal and active readership, who constantly corrected my errors, resolved my lingering questions, and inspired most of "my" best ideas. To me, this doesn't sound like something a world-class expert would be saying. But hey, I'm not an expert on experts, so my opinion is invalid, right? It's not my intent to convince you to like him, but I think you are exactly the type of person Scott had in mind when he wrote his first ever SSC post about emphasizing charity over absurdity[1]. It's okay if you don't like Scott's writing, and it's okay if you don't think he's worth listening to, but I just hope you slow down and try to genuinely understand why people might like his writing, and focus on those reasons for your argument instead of leaving an inflammatory comment making only very surface-level arguments. I would very much like to practice charity as well and genuinely understand why you don't like his writing, but when your argument boils down to "he's a neckbeard blogger who has opinions about many things", you're not giving me much to work with. [0]: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/youre-probably-wondering-why-ive https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/youre-probably-wonderi... [1]: https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/02/12/youre-probably-wondering-why-ive-called-you-here-today/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/02/12/youre-probably-wonderi...
- 6y ago
latte 6y ago
If I understand correctly, by "well-adjusted" you mean "a person who has no evident quirks" (like being a Tolkien fan to the extent of naming your practice Lorien, or blogging extensively in a way that can be perceived as pseudo-intellectual or pretentious). Why do you think it's important for a person to be "well-adjusted" in order to be trusted? Why do you believe that a person who has visible quirks cannot be trusted as a mental health professional (or even needs help himself)? Does the same thinking apply in your eyes to other professions? Would you likewise distrust, for example, a quirky lawyer, or a quirky manager?

by bedobi 6y ago

DaniloDias 6y ago

It’s clear you don’t like it. It’s weird that you are mad others do. In what way does it traumatize you that other people like and shared a thing?

bedobi 6y ago
I really don't like it. I'm not mad others like things I don't. I guess what does bug me is, the type of people who generate and like this kind of drivel have a strong tendency to walk around thinking they know better than Literally Everyone(tm), while not realizing they themselves in fact know next to nothing about all these fields and topics, and are themselves really no better than anti-vaxxers or chrystal healers - they'll literally just make up and believe anything as long as it comes with the right labels and has a certain air of what they perceive as rationality to it. For some reason, the HackerNews and Tech scene in general are very susceptible to this. (techies share the bizarre hubris of thinking they know better than everyone at everything, and can improve and "disrupt" any field) Economics and health care especially are apparently "solved" fields where literally every one of these people are actually hidden gem PhD level experts. If you think I'm exaggerating, ask them a question about economics or health care, and listen as they "expertly" explain Everything(tm) to you. Ffs, even the label "rationalist" itself is pathetic, and very revealing. It's basically a way to signal "I am right, take my word for it".
- DaniloDias 6y ago
  Sir, this is a Wendy’s.
- icebergonfire 6y ago
  > If you think I'm exaggerating, ask them a question about economics or health care, and listen as they "expertly" explain Everything(tm) to you. In my circles "rationalist" is widely used to describe a person who holds opinions as "untainted" by emotions as a human could possibly have them. Meaning there is a describeable chain of independently-verifiable rational facts that take you from A to B, yet they are not married to the conclusion and you can reason them out of their positions if you can spot a hole in the process. And no, not a single one of the people I know would dare pretend they know better than experts in the field. They might ask informed questions and poke around using their "standard" logic brain-instruments, but they mind their tone and proyect relentless curiosity instead of hubris. I am sure that people can abuse this thought-technology to peddle bullshit or to proyect an image of being all-knowing entites. In my case stumbling across LessWrong and later on SlateStarCodex got me started on trying to decouple emotions from the reality that causes them. It has helped me immensely in my never-ending quest to try to be the best possible version of myself. > Ffs, even the label "rationalist" itself is pathetic, and very revealing. It's basically a way to signal "I am right, take my word for it". That sounds abrassive to me and I wouldn't want to talk with that kind of people either, whatever labels they are wielding at the moment. I wonder if there is a cultural-bubble effect at play here, or if I have been lucky to not encounter them just yet.

hcta 6y ago

Huh? This just seems like a bunch of name-calling. > I don't know about you, but to me it seems like a comical case of the psychiatrist being the one who's in need of help. In what way? Can you spell it out a little? What about "Lorien", "Valinor" and rationalist blog posts indicates a problem?

bedobi 6y ago
Even the label "rationalist" itself is pathetic, and very revealing. It's basically a way to signal "I am right, take my word for it". And no, while I enjoyed reading and watching the lord of the rings as much as anyone, I'm very confident most people would agree that the type of person who surrounds themselves with other hardcore Tolkien fans and makes subtle Tolkien references in everyday life don't tend to be what you'd call the most well-adjusted people. I just realized both the previous and the new name of his blog is an anagram of his name. Again, this sends a certain signal, which is evidently very appealing to a lot of people, but to me screams "run".
- ccarterlandis 6y ago
  How is "rationalist" pathetic? What's it's revealing of? In what ways does it signal that he's right? Did you even read why he uses that term? [0] > the type of person who surrounds themselves with other hardcore Tolkien fans and makes subtle Tolkien references in everyday life don't tend to be what you'd call the most well-adjusted people Yeah, God forbid I surround myself with people who really enjoy similar things as me and like to make references to pop culture. That would just be so unbearable! You must be a lot of fun at Comic-Con. I don't think most people would agree with you here, and it just makes you sound absolutely insufferable to be around. > I just realized both the previous and the new name of his blog is an anagram of his name. Again, this sends a certain signal I want to believe so badly that you're trolling here. I don't understand how or why using an anagram of your name sends any sort of "signal", it's just a fun way to come up with a name that means nothing. This might be one of the biggest reaches for something to be angry about that I've seen in a long time. [0]: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/youre-probably-wondering-why-ive https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/youre-probably-wonderi... EDIT: fixed a typo

AYBABTME 6y ago

Here's why I think the author is interesting. Their writing style is easy to read, flows well, is funny, and brings up and applies interesting concepts. And here's why your comment is interesting: in calling the author a pseudo-intellectual who writes pretentiously, you're actually taking a pretentious position, judging the author's value based on your belief of what is good taste, what is an expert, and what makes for a well-adjusted individual. And that's interesting, exhibiting the features exactly as you criticize them.

reducesuffering 6y ago

“Psuedo-intellectual?” I’d spell pseudo right before criticizing someone that way. You can disagree with Scott and think he’s wrong all you want. Still, I have difficulty believing you truly think his writing isn’t bounds more intellectual, across a wide breadth of topics, than most people professing anything deemed intellectual.

ccarterlandis 6y ago

> psuedo-intellectuals This is so deliciously ironic. > runs a psychiatry called "Lorien", lives in a group-housing-community called "Valinor" Um...okay? What's your point? That those are funny names? No one gives a damn what they're called, and I fail to see what the problem is with running a psychiatry or living in a housing community. Do you also hate on ophthalmologists that run their own firms and college students living in community dorms too? Or what about all those monks and nuns that live in group housing and also practice medicine? Nothing about either of those things implies any amount of instability, or lack of adjustment. > are his opinions on all the countless fields and topics he writes about (in implied expert capacity) worth listening to? I don't think anyone is arguing that Scott is necessarily an expert of many of the subjects he covers, least of all himself. I think he's made it abundantly clear over the years that this is a side gig for him that he does for fun, and do broaden his understanding of the world. Even if he isn't an "expert", that doesn't mean he can't still do research and blog about it. Do you think that no one should ever talk or write about anything that they are not a world-class expert in? Cause that sounds really, really boring, and also basically impossible. From the first post on his new blog[0]: > And finally, the highlight of my last blog was its loyal and active readership, who constantly corrected my errors, resolved my lingering questions, and inspired most of "my" best ideas. To me, this doesn't sound like something a world-class expert would be saying. But hey, I'm not an expert on experts, so my opinion is invalid, right? It's not my intent to convince you to like him, but I think you are exactly the type of person Scott had in mind when he wrote his first ever SSC post about emphasizing charity over absurdity[1]. It's okay if you don't like Scott's writing, and it's okay if you don't think he's worth listening to, but I just hope you slow down and try to genuinely understand why people might like his writing, and focus on those reasons for your argument instead of leaving an inflammatory comment making only very surface-level arguments. I would very much like to practice charity as well and genuinely understand why you don't like his writing, but when your argument boils down to "he's a neckbeard blogger who has opinions about many things", you're not giving me much to work with. [0]: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/youre-probably-wondering-why-ive https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/youre-probably-wonderi... [1]: https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/02/12/youre-probably-wondering-why-ive-called-you-here-today/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/02/12/youre-probably-wonderi...

6y ago

latte 6y ago

If I understand correctly, by "well-adjusted" you mean "a person who has no evident quirks" (like being a Tolkien fan to the extent of naming your practice Lorien, or blogging extensively in a way that can be perceived as pseudo-intellectual or pretentious). Why do you think it's important for a person to be "well-adjusted" in order to be trusted? Why do you believe that a person who has visible quirks cannot be trusted as a mental health professional (or even needs help himself)? Does the same thinking apply in your eyes to other professions? Would you likewise distrust, for example, a quirky lawyer, or a quirky manager?