4 ms·

So I may have come at this backwards- I read Scott's rebuttal and then read the NYT peice. No offence to Scott but I think he's got this all wrong. The NYT piec

So I may have come at this backwards- I read Scott's rebuttal and then read the NYT peice. No offence to Scott but I think he's got this all wrong. The NYT piece isn't about Scott, it's just a writing gimmick. The article is about the self-styled rationalists, Scott is just an entry point to open the discussion around these group of people. It's not trying to tie Scott to Thiel, it's describing the pantheon of people who move in this world, and it is a world, these people don't all agree on one thing, although they do fall into a sort of groupthink on some topics. For example, almost every group likes to find a reason to think of itself as somehow better and more evolved than the outsiders, which is essentially exactly what you see with the people who frequent these groups. The rationalists think they're better than the NYT, largely because they look down on examining the world as it is, rather than inventing the world from first principles (in my view a key to the IQ debate between Harris & Klein). There are genuine critiques to be made of the "rationalists" (let's just accept the label as a term for the group of people having discussions in and around Scott's blog). I don't think the NYT is particularly making any. It is quite clear to me however, that the group has a massively over-sensitive to criticism and is entirely unwilling to actually debate the value of their approach with people who aren't already bought in to the appraoch. I don't think it's unreasonable for someone either from the Red tribe or the Blue tribe to say to the Grey tribe - "Sorry, but you can't be indifferent on the topics that you claim to be indifferent on". And the argument that the liberal end of the spectrum uses mob tactics seems rather... bizarre when made by an author who quite literally brags about the mob he stirred up against the NYT. I think there's a debate to be had about the approach of the "Rationalists" and I think the Rationalists are unwilling to have it - especially with anyone they've decided who isn't part of their Tribe.

xyzzy123 6y ago
I think you have the right lens. This is "blue tribe member discovers existence of grays, and denounces them as not true blues". Blue tribe be wary, the grays are among us and can be hard to tell apart. At first glance they often look like us, believe many of the "right" things. But something is... off? How can we spot grays? Well, grays (as almost the definition of their in-group) are supposed to value the substance of an argument more than appearances so if you say something nonsensical about, for example, race, you can smoke them out if they don't uncritically agree with you like a proper blue should. They can't help themselves! These optically challenged idiots will try to do _math_ on what you said, or something equally silly. It's perfect. A side benefit of this identification process is that you get to call them racist. Since gray tribe is vastly overrepresented here compared to general NYT readership I think this also explains the reaction of many commenters. Disclaimer: not a blue or red, probably a gray.
yanderekko 6y ago
>The NYT piece isn't about Scott, it's just a writing gimmick. The article is about the self-styled rationalists, Scott is just an entry point to open the discussion around these group of people. Do you think Scott actually disagrees with this? Regardless of whether it's a hit piece on Scott or rationalists more broadly, he realizes that if he gets cancelled or otherwise has his livelihood impacted then it impacts the rationalist community as well. I mean, maybe someone with better anonymity would step up to fill his intellectual niche, but it would still representment a blow to the movement. >The rationalists think they're better than the NYT, largely because they look down on examining the world as it is Weird complaint, and one that I don't think you'd find many rationalists ascribing to. I'm not sure what the non-strawman version of this claim is supposed to be here though. That rationalists don't bother to check their theories against reality enough? According to whom? >I don't think it's unreasonable for someone either from the Red tribe or the Blue tribe to say to the Grey tribe - "Sorry, but you can't be indifferent on the topics that you claim to be indifferent on". You can say that, it's how you attack the other tribe that matters. Hence the Wizard of Oz analogy in Scott's post. Attempts at showing that they Grey Tribe really is the Red Tribe or is somehow empowering them against shared Grey/Blue values need to rely on more than observing that the Grey Tribe is less enthusiastic about cancelling the Red Tribe.
sjwright 6y ago
> No offence to Scott but I think he's got this all wrong. The NYT piece isn't about Scott I'd be willing to entertain that hypothesis—but for how they knowingly and defiantly chose to unmask/dox a practising psychiatrist. Not printing names of sources is standard practice in media and to suggest that exceptions must be made in a case like this is dishonest. By your lights, Scott's name added zero value to the story; printing it demonstrated that the piece was most definitely about Scott. > the group has a massively over-sensitive to criticism Misrepresentation isn't criticism. Lumping a diverse group under one label and then using individual traits to infer criticism upon the whole—isn't criticism. You appear to be overly enthralled by group narratives rather than talking about individuals. > I think there's a debate to be had about the approach of the "Rationalists" and I think the Rationalists are unwilling to have it An interesting assertion which smells a bit like mind-reading to me. Can you point to any instances where honest, civilised debate of "rationalist" ideas was refused? You can criticise the "rationalists" of many things, but given the proliferation of unedited and undigested conversations they churn out, being unwilling to debate isn't one of them. (And yes, I realise that prior paragraph offers you plenty of rope: I haven't head the term "rationalist" used much and so I have no idea who you think a "rationalist" is. I have no idea what examples you might unearth. To be clear, I am not asking rhetorically, I'm asking because I'm genuinely curious what source data you used to form this unwillingness to debate hypothesis.)
curlypaul924 6y ago
Christians like to think of ourselves as less degraded than our neighbors, rather than less evolved. It amounts to the same thing in the end - a false superiority.

xyzzy123 6y ago

I think you have the right lens. This is "blue tribe member discovers existence of grays, and denounces them as not true blues". Blue tribe be wary, the grays are among us and can be hard to tell apart. At first glance they often look like us, believe many of the "right" things. But something is... off? How can we spot grays? Well, grays (as almost the definition of their in-group) are supposed to value the substance of an argument more than appearances so if you say something nonsensical about, for example, race, you can smoke them out if they don't uncritically agree with you like a proper blue should. They can't help themselves! These optically challenged idiots will try to do _math_ on what you said, or something equally silly. It's perfect. A side benefit of this identification process is that you get to call them racist. Since gray tribe is vastly overrepresented here compared to general NYT readership I think this also explains the reaction of many commenters. Disclaimer: not a blue or red, probably a gray.

yanderekko 6y ago

>The NYT piece isn't about Scott, it's just a writing gimmick. The article is about the self-styled rationalists, Scott is just an entry point to open the discussion around these group of people. Do you think Scott actually disagrees with this? Regardless of whether it's a hit piece on Scott or rationalists more broadly, he realizes that if he gets cancelled or otherwise has his livelihood impacted then it impacts the rationalist community as well. I mean, maybe someone with better anonymity would step up to fill his intellectual niche, but it would still representment a blow to the movement. >The rationalists think they're better than the NYT, largely because they look down on examining the world as it is Weird complaint, and one that I don't think you'd find many rationalists ascribing to. I'm not sure what the non-strawman version of this claim is supposed to be here though. That rationalists don't bother to check their theories against reality enough? According to whom? >I don't think it's unreasonable for someone either from the Red tribe or the Blue tribe to say to the Grey tribe - "Sorry, but you can't be indifferent on the topics that you claim to be indifferent on". You can say that, it's how you attack the other tribe that matters. Hence the Wizard of Oz analogy in Scott's post. Attempts at showing that they Grey Tribe really is the Red Tribe or is somehow empowering them against shared Grey/Blue values need to rely on more than observing that the Grey Tribe is less enthusiastic about cancelling the Red Tribe.

sjwright 6y ago

> No offence to Scott but I think he's got this all wrong. The NYT piece isn't about Scott I'd be willing to entertain that hypothesis—but for how they knowingly and defiantly chose to unmask/dox a practising psychiatrist. Not printing names of sources is standard practice in media and to suggest that exceptions must be made in a case like this is dishonest. By your lights, Scott's name added zero value to the story; printing it demonstrated that the piece was most definitely about Scott. > the group has a massively over-sensitive to criticism Misrepresentation isn't criticism. Lumping a diverse group under one label and then using individual traits to infer criticism upon the whole—isn't criticism. You appear to be overly enthralled by group narratives rather than talking about individuals. > I think there's a debate to be had about the approach of the "Rationalists" and I think the Rationalists are unwilling to have it An interesting assertion which smells a bit like mind-reading to me. Can you point to any instances where honest, civilised debate of "rationalist" ideas was refused? You can criticise the "rationalists" of many things, but given the proliferation of unedited and undigested conversations they churn out, being unwilling to debate isn't one of them. (And yes, I realise that prior paragraph offers you plenty of rope: I haven't head the term "rationalist" used much and so I have no idea who you think a "rationalist" is. I have no idea what examples you might unearth. To be clear, I am not asking rhetorically, I'm asking because I'm genuinely curious what source data you used to form this unwillingness to debate hypothesis.)

curlypaul924 6y ago

Christians like to think of ourselves as less degraded than our neighbors, rather than less evolved. It amounts to the same thing in the end - a false superiority.