5 ms·

The irony is that non-conformist thinkers tend to sound similar after a while. The guiding thread is that they place value on being controversial and non-confor

by Bakary 6y ago

The irony is that non-conformist thinkers tend to sound similar after a while. The guiding thread is that they place value on being controversial and non-conformist for its own sake. I can understand the emotional draw of it and have been subject to it myself, but because they define themselves in opposition to the mainstream, they can never really escape its orbit. Just like Satanists draw crosses upside down instead of new symbols, and hipsters dress the same way.

PragmaticPulp 6y ago
The real irony is that the rationalist community’s strong reaction to this article as propelled it to a level of popularity that wouldn’t have been possible otherwise. Without the months of speculation and build-up and the seeming desire for everyone to write their own nit-picks of what the article got wrong (while deliberately ignoring what it might have gotten right), this article likely wouldn’t have received much traction at all.
- Bakary 6y ago
  I'm probably heavily projecting my own personal flaws here, but I've come to believe that the driving force behind that community is to feel smart and be recognized as such in some public forum. Therefore their strategic thinking was compromised from the start in this particular instance. There was no chance of them collectively deciding to follow your proposition.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    Perhaps it was not about "strategic thinking" to achieve some end goal, but about denouncing what they feel is wrong? Besides, I don't see any "let's stragetically be hush about it, so the article goes unnoticed" ever working. The mere publishing of the article, with no reaction, would be enough to have personal consequences for the blogger. At least with the big commotion, the shittiness of NYT publishing it has come under scutiny too. So the reaction might be strategically good too.
    - pseudalopex 6y ago
      Siskind said taking SSC down was strategic. And an overreaction.
- coldtea 6y ago
  >The real irony is that the rationalist community’s strong reaction to this article as propelled it to a level of popularity that wouldn’t have been possible otherwise. It wouldn't need much popularity to do damage. A modestly popular article exposing the guy would be enough for him to have personal consequences. People have been cancelled (from their jobs) for less. On the other hand, the big reaction might stop the next such bullying, or at least make the next journalist consider that they're doing something scummy and tacky.
coldtea 6y ago
>The irony is that non-conformist thinkers tend to sound similar after a while. Non-comformist means outside the mainstream. There's no infinite variety outside the mainstream, and even if there was, it doesn't matter in its entirety (nobody will call you a non-conformist for writing about butterflies, even if it's not mainstream). What most matters is the subset of the variety of topics directly opposed by conformist views. So, that's what non-comformists explore primarily. And that's the value in having non-conformists. Not some variety of millions of irrelevant viewpoints on this and that - but as a counter-voice to what's promoted 24/7 on all mainstream sources.
- Bakary 6y ago
  It's possible I am viewing the situation too harshly, but so far non-conformism been disappointing. I do agree with you that it's nice that there at least are some people doing something else. I am bringing criticism without proposing solutions, but I find it fun to discuss those topics to begin with. Essentially it falls into a few categories. - The free-speech crowd: while I appreciate that they go against the mainstream media and the neoliberal consensus, they tend to default to invoking values and symbolic victories without much in way of an actual plan or policy proposals. Essentially a new form of the aestheticization of politics in a different context. From Trump to Parler, it all feels very postmodern in a way and keeps changing randomly. - The intellectual dark web: these spend most of their time hinting at controversy and reiterating their stance as free thinkers, but it rarely goes beyond questioning SJW ideology and arguing for just a more optimistic version of the current form of capitalism. (Pinker, for example) It's frustrating because it really seems like they could band together to produce some great things. - Various self-help authors or commentators whose career is based on debates, media production, and who essentially promote the same ideas as the dark web, but in a more packageable format and with a focus on personal improvement and subscription or ad based revenue generation. (Shapiro, JBP) - Rationalists: spend most of their time discussing lifestyle differences and AI. The latter is obviously very important, but they don't really address current problems and prefer to talk about Bayesian statistics in their own zone, or provide thrill-seeking to tech workers. It's unclear what they even achieve with all that rationality other than discussing it. HPMOR is great, though. - The modern day far-left: those who aren't aligned with the mainstream and who don't pursue idpol are mostly in a state of disarray, in small numbers, a mirror version of the commentators described above, or subject to tankism All in all, many of them are doing better than me on the front of ideas but it's not very motivating.

by Bakary 6y ago

PragmaticPulp 6y ago

The real irony is that the rationalist community’s strong reaction to this article as propelled it to a level of popularity that wouldn’t have been possible otherwise. Without the months of speculation and build-up and the seeming desire for everyone to write their own nit-picks of what the article got wrong (while deliberately ignoring what it might have gotten right), this article likely wouldn’t have received much traction at all.

Bakary 6y ago
I'm probably heavily projecting my own personal flaws here, but I've come to believe that the driving force behind that community is to feel smart and be recognized as such in some public forum. Therefore their strategic thinking was compromised from the start in this particular instance. There was no chance of them collectively deciding to follow your proposition.
- coldtea 6y ago
  Perhaps it was not about "strategic thinking" to achieve some end goal, but about denouncing what they feel is wrong? Besides, I don't see any "let's stragetically be hush about it, so the article goes unnoticed" ever working. The mere publishing of the article, with no reaction, would be enough to have personal consequences for the blogger. At least with the big commotion, the shittiness of NYT publishing it has come under scutiny too. So the reaction might be strategically good too.
  - pseudalopex 6y ago
    Siskind said taking SSC down was strategic. And an overreaction.
coldtea 6y ago
>The real irony is that the rationalist community’s strong reaction to this article as propelled it to a level of popularity that wouldn’t have been possible otherwise. It wouldn't need much popularity to do damage. A modestly popular article exposing the guy would be enough for him to have personal consequences. People have been cancelled (from their jobs) for less. On the other hand, the big reaction might stop the next such bullying, or at least make the next journalist consider that they're doing something scummy and tacky.

coldtea 6y ago

>The irony is that non-conformist thinkers tend to sound similar after a while. Non-comformist means outside the mainstream. There's no infinite variety outside the mainstream, and even if there was, it doesn't matter in its entirety (nobody will call you a non-conformist for writing about butterflies, even if it's not mainstream). What most matters is the subset of the variety of topics directly opposed by conformist views. So, that's what non-comformists explore primarily. And that's the value in having non-conformists. Not some variety of millions of irrelevant viewpoints on this and that - but as a counter-voice to what's promoted 24/7 on all mainstream sources.

Bakary 6y ago
It's possible I am viewing the situation too harshly, but so far non-conformism been disappointing. I do agree with you that it's nice that there at least are some people doing something else. I am bringing criticism without proposing solutions, but I find it fun to discuss those topics to begin with. Essentially it falls into a few categories. - The free-speech crowd: while I appreciate that they go against the mainstream media and the neoliberal consensus, they tend to default to invoking values and symbolic victories without much in way of an actual plan or policy proposals. Essentially a new form of the aestheticization of politics in a different context. From Trump to Parler, it all feels very postmodern in a way and keeps changing randomly. - The intellectual dark web: these spend most of their time hinting at controversy and reiterating their stance as free thinkers, but it rarely goes beyond questioning SJW ideology and arguing for just a more optimistic version of the current form of capitalism. (Pinker, for example) It's frustrating because it really seems like they could band together to produce some great things. - Various self-help authors or commentators whose career is based on debates, media production, and who essentially promote the same ideas as the dark web, but in a more packageable format and with a focus on personal improvement and subscription or ad based revenue generation. (Shapiro, JBP) - Rationalists: spend most of their time discussing lifestyle differences and AI. The latter is obviously very important, but they don't really address current problems and prefer to talk about Bayesian statistics in their own zone, or provide thrill-seeking to tech workers. It's unclear what they even achieve with all that rationality other than discussing it. HPMOR is great, though. - The modern day far-left: those who aren't aligned with the mainstream and who don't pursue idpol are mostly in a state of disarray, in small numbers, a mirror version of the commentators described above, or subject to tankism All in all, many of them are doing better than me on the front of ideas but it's not very motivating.