3 ms·

The fact that you would be suspicious of someone who regularly reads The New York Times says more about you than it does people who read The New York Times.

by OskarS 6y ago

motohagiography 6y ago
One could think that, but if I said we could rationally form insights into someones psychological make up by going through their pornHub history, few would disagree, and yet if I imply their choice of lifestyle pornography yields similar tells, it's just me? I'm not sure I'd agree. :) Like any symbolic luxury good, it's an expression of alignment to what someone perceives to be power. It signals their beliefs about the world. Do they just enjoy it? Sure, but they enjoy it because it reinforces the story they tell themselves about their identity. It's like if they read USA Today or even Slate Star Codex. Today's NYT is written to arouse sentiments I prefer to keep at arms length.
- PragmaticPulp 6y ago
  One of my least favorite trends in rationalist communities is taking extremely weak signals and using mental gymnastics to amplify those signals into some more dramatic conclusion. Apply overt formal writing style combined with some cleverly disguised fallacies (“few would disagree...”) and the piece has an air of faux sophistication and manufactured consensus. Meanwhile, you’re arguing that you can draw sweeping conclusions about a person simply because they read a certain publication. Ironic, given the rationalist community’s original embrace of exploring a wide array of perspectives and writings rather than letting pre-conceived biases dominate one’s thinking. I think you’re projecting your own habit of tying your identity to the material you read. Plenty of people read NYT articles without aligning themselves with the NYT, without thinking of themselves as part of the NYT community, and without building an identity around being an NYT reader. Plenty of people read NYT articles even though they disagree with them. Simply reading the NYT doesn’t turn someone into a self-described NYT person in the way that many people thinking reading SSC turns them into a rationalist.
- OskarS 6y ago
  Again, the fact that you compare reading the New York Times to PornHub says a lot more about you that it does anyone else. You're less rational than you think.
PragmaticPulp 6y ago
Rationalist communities were fun when they were more about exploring ideas from different angles and less about identifying as a group with superior thoughts and beliefs. It’s ironic that rationalists spend so much energy criticizing people who won’t tolerate the out group, while simultaneously being intolerant of what they define as the out group.
- wizzwizz4 6y ago
  New communities will appear. Perhaps not ones as international, but that's okay; smaller groups can be better, because they're less vulnerable to evaporative cooling of beliefs; the group just disbands when people start leaving. When groups get into happy death spirals, it's often easier to just start a new one.

The fact that you would be suspicious of someone who regularly reads The New York Times says more about you than it does people who read The New York Times.

by OskarS 6y ago

The fact that you would be suspicious of someone who regularly reads The New York Times says more about you than it does people who read The New York Times.

motohagiography 6y ago

One could think that, but if I said we could rationally form insights into someones psychological make up by going through their pornHub history, few would disagree, and yet if I imply their choice of lifestyle pornography yields similar tells, it's just me? I'm not sure I'd agree. :) Like any symbolic luxury good, it's an expression of alignment to what someone perceives to be power. It signals their beliefs about the world. Do they just enjoy it? Sure, but they enjoy it because it reinforces the story they tell themselves about their identity. It's like if they read USA Today or even Slate Star Codex. Today's NYT is written to arouse sentiments I prefer to keep at arms length.

PragmaticPulp 6y ago
One of my least favorite trends in rationalist communities is taking extremely weak signals and using mental gymnastics to amplify those signals into some more dramatic conclusion. Apply overt formal writing style combined with some cleverly disguised fallacies (“few would disagree...”) and the piece has an air of faux sophistication and manufactured consensus. Meanwhile, you’re arguing that you can draw sweeping conclusions about a person simply because they read a certain publication. Ironic, given the rationalist community’s original embrace of exploring a wide array of perspectives and writings rather than letting pre-conceived biases dominate one’s thinking. I think you’re projecting your own habit of tying your identity to the material you read. Plenty of people read NYT articles without aligning themselves with the NYT, without thinking of themselves as part of the NYT community, and without building an identity around being an NYT reader. Plenty of people read NYT articles even though they disagree with them. Simply reading the NYT doesn’t turn someone into a self-described NYT person in the way that many people thinking reading SSC turns them into a rationalist.
OskarS 6y ago
Again, the fact that you compare reading the New York Times to PornHub says a lot more about you that it does anyone else. You're less rational than you think.

PragmaticPulp 6y ago

Rationalist communities were fun when they were more about exploring ideas from different angles and less about identifying as a group with superior thoughts and beliefs. It’s ironic that rationalists spend so much energy criticizing people who won’t tolerate the out group, while simultaneously being intolerant of what they define as the out group.

wizzwizz4 6y ago
New communities will appear. Perhaps not ones as international, but that's okay; smaller groups can be better, because they're less vulnerable to evaporative cooling of beliefs; the group just disbands when people start leaving. When groups get into happy death spirals, it's often easier to just start a new one.