6 ms·

Most “rationalists” have a barrier to adulthood they need to overcome… That Scott guy is/was somewhat problematic, but recognizably smart. It’s one of maybe fi

Most “rationalists” have a barrier to adulthood they need to overcome… That Scott guy is/was somewhat problematic, but recognizably smart. It’s one of maybe five people where I consciously notice someone’s intelligence. The rest of that community is toxic and misguided, starting with the idea that emotions are somehow “bad’.

ByteJockey 5y ago
They aren't bad, they just shouldn't control you.
- jkubicek 5y ago
  It's fine to let emotions control you, you just need to be aware that they are and make sure it's the right emotions controlling you. I'm happy to continue living in California because emotionally: * I like the weather * I like living close to mountains and beaches and deserts * I like my house and I'm too lazy to move Rationally I should take the 10% pay cut to go full remote and move to a suburb of Indianapolis.
  - bottled_poe 5y ago
    This implies that satisfying your emotional needs is irrational, which is not a healthy frame of mind.
    - tsimionescu 5y ago
      And yet, it is the rationalist ethos. This was GP's point - many rationalists believe some quite misguided things.
      - pmontra 5y ago
        Maybe GP means that satisfying emotional needs could be the rational choice.
        Filligree 5y ago
        What would be the point of rationality otherwise? It doesn’t decide your goals, it just helps you reach them. The number of strawmen in this thread is far too high.
      - inkblotuniverse 5y ago
        It isn't the rationalist ethos. Your emotions should obviously guide you, they're a part of you and important evidence. What you described is exactly how rationalists think emotions are best wielded: you look at your/a situation and look at how you feel about it. They're your barometers for whether that which you believe to be your goal is actually your goal. Emotions are misused when you treat factual beliefs as goals: then your emotions get attached to them, in unhealthy and cult-like ways.
      - mst 5y ago
        Many people believe many quite misguided things. Rationality is one approach to trying to believe fewer misguided things. That doesn't make it easy and it doesn't mean that success rates at doing so aren't still wildly variable.
  - FeepingCreature 5y ago
    Speaking as a part-time rationalist, it is not a rationalist position that there is such a thing as "bad goals". At most there may be inconsistent goals. The Utility Function Is Not Up For Grabs https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/the-utility-function-is-not-up-for-grabs https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/the-utility-function-is-not-up... . If under your goals living in California is optimal, then it is rational to live in California. The point of, for instance, EA is not that giving to homeless people in New York when there's starving children in Africa is a bad goal- it's that it's an inconsistent goal when one also professes that human lives have equal value. And when one wants to live by that tenet, then EA offers better routes to optimizing lives saved.
  - ByteJockey 5y ago
    > It's fine to let emotions control you, you just need to be aware that they are and make sure it's the right emotions controlling you. Ok, I'll bite. If it's the wrong emotions controlling you, what do you do then? Please don't suggest any course of action that requires you to be in control.
FeepingCreature 5y ago
Recommended link: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/z9hfbWhRrY2Pwwrgi/summary-of-the-straw-vulcan https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/z9hfbWhRrY2Pwwrgi/summary-of... I cannot disprove that individual rationalists believe this, but to my knowledge it is not a community opinion. The problem with emotions arises when you attach emotional valence to beliefs and conclusions, rather than outcomes. Inasmuch as rationalists can be seen as down on emotions, it is because lots of people allow emotions to distort their thinking about reality. In other words, rather than having emotional preferences over outcomes, they have emotional preferences over beliefs and modes of reasoning. (That's why a core of rationalist technique (short [1] long [2]) is learning to emotionally tolerate the possibility of being mistaken.) This is indeed antithetical to rational thought, but it's hardly the only thing emotions are for. There is nothing wrong with emotions. They just have no place in the process you use to arrive at beliefs about reality. In other words, rationality rejects the Pratchettian claim that you have to believe "the big [lies]: justice, mercy, duty." [3] Instead, it reframes those as evolved game-theoretic adaptations that are part of the iterated game you are playing with your peers, called "society." This places emotion in its proper context without invalidating it. Quite the opposite, it views emotion as a vital, useful part of human interaction and decisionmaking, rather than the generic default of "just part of what it means to be human". [1] https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/litany-of-gendlin https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/litany-of-gendlin [2] https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/how-to-actually-change-your-mind https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/how-to-actually-change-your-mi... [3] https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/583655-hogfather https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/583655-hogfather
- Nav_Panel 5y ago
  > [rationality] reframes [emotions] as evolved game-theoretic adaptations that are part of the iterated game you are playing with your peers, called "society." Do the rationalists realize that this is fundamentally a metaphysical or even theological argument?
  - FeepingCreature 5y ago
    I disagree; I think it is fundamentally an empirical argument. The source of our convictions should have no impact on their validity, which is the realm of morality. In doing so, rationality does not seek to disprove emotions, which would be nonsensical, but rather to justify and contextualize them by understanding the competitive pressures that gave rise to them. In other words, the idea is that in understanding the game theoretic strategy that our brain is executing when we feel things - "get where it's coming from" - we can bring our emotions into harmony with our conscious beliefs, and either support our unconscious brain in its emotional reaction or reign it in where the evolutionary context is no longer valid. (I'm not sure where you're coming from with "theological.")

ByteJockey 5y ago

They aren't bad, they just shouldn't control you.

jkubicek 5y ago
It's fine to let emotions control you, you just need to be aware that they are and make sure it's the right emotions controlling you. I'm happy to continue living in California because emotionally: * I like the weather * I like living close to mountains and beaches and deserts * I like my house and I'm too lazy to move Rationally I should take the 10% pay cut to go full remote and move to a suburb of Indianapolis.
- bottled_poe 5y ago
  This implies that satisfying your emotional needs is irrational, which is not a healthy frame of mind.
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
    And yet, it is the rationalist ethos. This was GP's point - many rationalists believe some quite misguided things.
    - pmontra 5y ago
      Maybe GP means that satisfying emotional needs could be the rational choice.
      - Filligree 5y ago
        What would be the point of rationality otherwise? It doesn’t decide your goals, it just helps you reach them. The number of strawmen in this thread is far too high.
    - inkblotuniverse 5y ago
      It isn't the rationalist ethos. Your emotions should obviously guide you, they're a part of you and important evidence. What you described is exactly how rationalists think emotions are best wielded: you look at your/a situation and look at how you feel about it. They're your barometers for whether that which you believe to be your goal is actually your goal. Emotions are misused when you treat factual beliefs as goals: then your emotions get attached to them, in unhealthy and cult-like ways.
    - mst 5y ago
      Many people believe many quite misguided things. Rationality is one approach to trying to believe fewer misguided things. That doesn't make it easy and it doesn't mean that success rates at doing so aren't still wildly variable.
- FeepingCreature 5y ago
  Speaking as a part-time rationalist, it is not a rationalist position that there is such a thing as "bad goals". At most there may be inconsistent goals. The Utility Function Is Not Up For Grabs https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/the-utility-function-is-not-up-for-grabs https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/the-utility-function-is-not-up... . If under your goals living in California is optimal, then it is rational to live in California. The point of, for instance, EA is not that giving to homeless people in New York when there's starving children in Africa is a bad goal- it's that it's an inconsistent goal when one also professes that human lives have equal value. And when one wants to live by that tenet, then EA offers better routes to optimizing lives saved.
- ByteJockey 5y ago
  > It's fine to let emotions control you, you just need to be aware that they are and make sure it's the right emotions controlling you. Ok, I'll bite. If it's the wrong emotions controlling you, what do you do then? Please don't suggest any course of action that requires you to be in control.

FeepingCreature 5y ago

Recommended link: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/z9hfbWhRrY2Pwwrgi/summary-of-the-straw-vulcan https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/z9hfbWhRrY2Pwwrgi/summary-of... I cannot disprove that individual rationalists believe this, but to my knowledge it is not a community opinion. The problem with emotions arises when you attach emotional valence to beliefs and conclusions, rather than outcomes. Inasmuch as rationalists can be seen as down on emotions, it is because lots of people allow emotions to distort their thinking about reality. In other words, rather than having emotional preferences over outcomes, they have emotional preferences over beliefs and modes of reasoning. (That's why a core of rationalist technique (short [1] long [2]) is learning to emotionally tolerate the possibility of being mistaken.) This is indeed antithetical to rational thought, but it's hardly the only thing emotions are for. There is nothing wrong with emotions. They just have no place in the process you use to arrive at beliefs about reality. In other words, rationality rejects the Pratchettian claim that you have to believe "the big [lies]: justice, mercy, duty." [3] Instead, it reframes those as evolved game-theoretic adaptations that are part of the iterated game you are playing with your peers, called "society." This places emotion in its proper context without invalidating it. Quite the opposite, it views emotion as a vital, useful part of human interaction and decisionmaking, rather than the generic default of "just part of what it means to be human". [1] https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/litany-of-gendlin https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/litany-of-gendlin [2] https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/how-to-actually-change-your-mind https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/how-to-actually-change-your-mi... [3] https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/583655-hogfather https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/583655-hogfather

Nav_Panel 5y ago
> [rationality] reframes [emotions] as evolved game-theoretic adaptations that are part of the iterated game you are playing with your peers, called "society." Do the rationalists realize that this is fundamentally a metaphysical or even theological argument?
- FeepingCreature 5y ago
  I disagree; I think it is fundamentally an empirical argument. The source of our convictions should have no impact on their validity, which is the realm of morality. In doing so, rationality does not seek to disprove emotions, which would be nonsensical, but rather to justify and contextualize them by understanding the competitive pressures that gave rise to them. In other words, the idea is that in understanding the game theoretic strategy that our brain is executing when we feel things - "get where it's coming from" - we can bring our emotions into harmony with our conscious beliefs, and either support our unconscious brain in its emotional reaction or reign it in where the evolutionary context is no longer valid. (I'm not sure where you're coming from with "theological.")