3 ms·

Plenty of people in that community have written at length about how "rational" only applies to "understanding true factual statements" or "achieving your goals"

Plenty of people in that community have written at length about how "rational" only applies to "understanding true factual statements" or "achieving your goals". No end goal is irrational. There is nothing you can care about where someone can correct you and say you ought not to care because "rationality". I feel this community generates more reading comprehension failures in the general public than almost any other.

newacct583 6y ago
Isn't reporting the identity of an anonymous author a "true factual statement" important to understand his "goals" though? I mean, I agree this article was bad, but reporting it looks pretty rationalist to me. I'm not saying you "shouldn't care" about this. I'm saying the fact that you clearly care so deeply is evidence that "rationalism" is largely a fraud. You want rationalism except when you get criticized, then you want a safe space.
- vcxy 6y ago
  Just commenting on the first paragraph. Not going to touch the second. I'm not convinced his last name has anything to do with understanding him, rationalism, SSC, SSC's wider influence, etc any better. His thin pseudonym is what was actually well known anyway, and without his last name the article would have still included the fact that he is a psychiatrist in the Bay area. You imply there is a particular goal of his that you could figure out by knowing his last name. That sounds ridiculous, but I guess I'll ask anyway: What is that goal that you figured out through knowing his last name?
  - newacct583 6y ago
    > What is that goal that you figured out through knowing his last name? Hell if I know. But that's not really the standard, is it? It was a true fact. It's relevant to discussion about the guy. A "rationalist" would, objectively, be expected to celebrate this sort of thing. Let's get all the facts on the table and stop hiding stuff, then we'll figure it all out. Deliberate anonymity like this certainly can be used to hide an agenda. You agree with that much, right? Also: don't fall into the rhetorical trap of claiming the guy was "cancelled" (which you seem to be dancing around without saying). He wasn't. His patients didn't leave, his clinic didn't fire him. He just quit, taking the opportunity to strike out on substack.
    - vcxy 6y ago
      It is a true fact, but it is not relevant to discussion, which I think I already made pretty clear. I don't actually care if you'd call it rationalist or not. Neither I nor the NYT are rationalist (either by hawkice's narrow definition, or as members of the community in question), so I don't know why you would hold either of us to that standard. And I have zero clue why you think that I think he was cancelled. He certainly was not cancelled. I didn't say he was because I don't believe he was. Again, I have no idea why you think knowing his last name could cause anyone (since you say it didn't actually work for you apparently) to know his goals. Anyway, I seem to be violating some HN norms given the downvotes, so I'll end this here.
Tarq0n 6y ago
I would disagree with that characterization. In fact, SSC's essays often involve emotionally colored language, some are even parables/fiction that clearly engage in more than rational argument. Ideally what it tries to do instead is to make us mindful of the emotional aspect, and re-examine it. That's for instance why rationalists are so obsessed with ingroup-outgroup processes: they notice themselves exhibiting the same patterns and want to understand why.

newacct583 6y ago

Isn't reporting the identity of an anonymous author a "true factual statement" important to understand his "goals" though? I mean, I agree this article was bad, but reporting it looks pretty rationalist to me. I'm not saying you "shouldn't care" about this. I'm saying the fact that you clearly care so deeply is evidence that "rationalism" is largely a fraud. You want rationalism except when you get criticized, then you want a safe space.

vcxy 6y ago
Just commenting on the first paragraph. Not going to touch the second. I'm not convinced his last name has anything to do with understanding him, rationalism, SSC, SSC's wider influence, etc any better. His thin pseudonym is what was actually well known anyway, and without his last name the article would have still included the fact that he is a psychiatrist in the Bay area. You imply there is a particular goal of his that you could figure out by knowing his last name. That sounds ridiculous, but I guess I'll ask anyway: What is that goal that you figured out through knowing his last name?
- newacct583 6y ago
  > What is that goal that you figured out through knowing his last name? Hell if I know. But that's not really the standard, is it? It was a true fact. It's relevant to discussion about the guy. A "rationalist" would, objectively, be expected to celebrate this sort of thing. Let's get all the facts on the table and stop hiding stuff, then we'll figure it all out. Deliberate anonymity like this certainly can be used to hide an agenda. You agree with that much, right? Also: don't fall into the rhetorical trap of claiming the guy was "cancelled" (which you seem to be dancing around without saying). He wasn't. His patients didn't leave, his clinic didn't fire him. He just quit, taking the opportunity to strike out on substack.
  - vcxy 6y ago
    It is a true fact, but it is not relevant to discussion, which I think I already made pretty clear. I don't actually care if you'd call it rationalist or not. Neither I nor the NYT are rationalist (either by hawkice's narrow definition, or as members of the community in question), so I don't know why you would hold either of us to that standard. And I have zero clue why you think that I think he was cancelled. He certainly was not cancelled. I didn't say he was because I don't believe he was. Again, I have no idea why you think knowing his last name could cause anyone (since you say it didn't actually work for you apparently) to know his goals. Anyway, I seem to be violating some HN norms given the downvotes, so I'll end this here.

Tarq0n 6y ago

I would disagree with that characterization. In fact, SSC's essays often involve emotionally colored language, some are even parables/fiction that clearly engage in more than rational argument. Ideally what it tries to do instead is to make us mindful of the emotional aspect, and re-examine it. That's for instance why rationalists are so obsessed with ingroup-outgroup processes: they notice themselves exhibiting the same patterns and want to understand why.