6 ms·

As someone who is not in the "rationalist" crowd (and has no interest to be), could someone explain their weird vocabulary to me? You pretty much know you're r

• Karrot_Kream 4y ago
  If you're in SV-adjacent circles, lots of people are throatily anti-crypto, to the point where they start seeing red when you mention crypto, and pelt crypto with the same anti arguments repeated ad nauseum. There are influencers who have sprung up whose entire claim to fame has been their negative coverage of crypto (a mirror to the shady crypto influencers shilling their shitcoins). It's not a big leap to see that as "infinitely hostile". So the title is just "I'm not 'infinitely hostile'". Also, "bullish" is generally a financial term, and in this case may refer to "price go up" which doesn't seem to be the intent of the article. The article is stressing usecases not price.
  • Waterluvian 4y ago
    I have not observed this “seeing red” at all. What I have observed, many times over, is “one side” needing to feel like the “other side” is seeing red. “Triggered.” “Tilted.” “Trolled.” “Got ‘em.” Etc. Very common, not limited to any one subculture.
    • Karrot_Kream 4y ago
      There's so many HN posts about crypto with crazy long comment trees, there's no need to litigate this here. Primary sources are plenty.
      • Waterluvian 4y ago
        Indeed. It’s very easy to project upon text comments whatever emotion you interpret. Another well-known phenomenon. It’s why so many people find things like Slack to be so problematic for nuanced conversation.
  • deeviant 4y ago
    > If you're in SV-adjacent circles, lots of people are throatily anti-crypto, to the point where they start seeing red when you mention crypto, and pelt crypto with the same anti arguments repeated ad nauseum. Oh I know just the type you mean. Of course, a type of person that is infinitely more annoying is the crypto evangelist explaining to you why they are making the world better because their startup is making it easy for grandma get in on the crypto revolution with her retirement fund.
    • Karrot_Kream 4y ago
      I'm not trying to play "pick your favorite character" here. I'm just explaining what I believed 'infinitely hostile to cryptocurrency' to mean.
• habitue 4y ago
  > less than infinite This is ironic understatement. It's not a rationalist thing, it's a joke!
• engineer_22 4y ago
  It's their personality.
• savanaly 4y ago
  Part of human behavior is rounding things off to the nearest whole value. Something is either good or bad. Either wrong or right. While recognizing the utility of that approach and conceding it's often a good strategy, rationalists look for ways where resisting that very human tendency can help us out. I think this is most true when talking about an issue of policy that will affect millions/billions of people, like whether crypto should be encouraged or discouraged. That's the origin of the extra phraseology you're noticing in my opinion: to distinguish between supporting something, kind of supporting it, being bullish on it, being certain of it, being skeptical, being mildly skeptical, etc. To my ear, saying "I'm still bullish" rather than "I'm less than infinitely certain about X" is the weird sounding one, like someone's trying really hard to signal to me they know and care about stocks and investments and stuff. To be honest I don't and still get confused on which is which between "bearish" and "bullish".
  • xg15 4y ago
    Makes sort of sense, but "less than infinitely" doesn't really mean anything. You could be extremely opposed to crypto for all practical purposes and still be "less than infinitely" hostile. The other phrases are also vague enough that they are not really helpful. If you're "mildly opinionated" enough about something to write a blog post about it, I'm starting to how much degree is actually meant with "mild". If to people are mildly opinionated about somthing, who does have the stronger opinion? I agree that things are often complex and not clear-cut, but I don't see how trying to mush everything into featureless grey would help here to gain insight.
    • eric-hu 4y ago
      It's cool that the author is in this thread commenting too. I read the article before reading his comments in here, and "infinitely hostile" resonated with me on a personal level. I've been berated by certain friends for entertaining opinions different from theirs. It's hostility that felt unworkable to me, I don't feel like I can actually engage these individuals in conversation about topics such as cryptocurrency. I entered these conversations with some platonic notion of friendly debate where we'd share our perspectives, maybe point out where we disagree with each other, then walk away with better understanding of each others views. Instead, I felt like I got yelled at and interrupted before finishing 2 sentences, and overall I just want to avoid such an interaction again. "Less than infinitely" to me made sense too, it's what I would've liked out of my friend on the topic of crypto or really anything where we don't see eye to eye. I don't want an "omg you're right what have I been thinking", but maybe "I don't know about your conclusions, but I'll consider what you said and maybe they'll change my mind or maybe they'll help me better form my own arguments."
• e63f67dd-065b 4y ago
  I searched the article and comments for all three of those phrases, and the only time it pops up is in the title or in reference to it, so I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about. My impression of the title is that the essay is a response to the largely maximally hostile stance many take towards cryptocurrency projects, and his attempt at moderation of that stance.
  • xg15 4y ago
    ah, sorry. I've read "mildly opinionated" way back in another post - and LessWrong is the name of one of their main communities and websites.
• foxes 4y ago
  way of life + "wow I'm so smart" + "wow so deep"
  • thot_experiment 4y ago
    It's really not, you're just not part of the culture so you don't understand the lexicon, but since the lexicon still uses english words it's confusing to you. It's the same thing with any sufficiently divergent dialect, you lack the context so you fill in meaning from your own context which is incorrect leading you to these conclusions. It's just linguistic compression focused on a cluster of common avenues of thought to make communication faster, easier and more precise when in those realms.
• JulianChastain 4y ago
  Presumably because the author feels that simply characterizing the anti-crypto position as bearish doesn't do justice to the animosity many people hold towards crypto. He's also not saying he is bullish on crypto currency, just that he doesn't think the frothing at the mouth hatred of it is justified.
  • XorNot 4y ago
    It is just incredibly weird to be pushing a financial instrument where you think the key problem is "people are being mean about it on the internet". Which is to say, this is just a propaganda rhetoric strategy: the opposition don't have valid points, they're just crazed by their hatred. Don't try to understand what they're saying because they're crazy and can be ignored.
    • smackeyacky 4y ago
      It's rhetoric that's as old as arguing on the internet c.f. "DEC didn't fail because the products were bad, it was the MARKETING". Which is...not true. The fact that not enough people wanted DEC products might be a marketing issue, but more likely is that other companies made stuff that they wanted more. It's like a last, desperate grab that's deployed when the argument has exhausted itself.
• eric-hu 4y ago
  > Why not just say "why I'm still bullish on crypto even though everyone says the opposite"? The author's view is tangential to bull/bear in the financial sense. From the article: > This post is emphatically not intended as a claim that crypto will go up more, or that it won’t go down a lot, or that there won’t be any more disasters or scams7. It’s a claim that aside from its going-up ability, crypto is still a set of interesting technological solutions to regulatory problems.
• bawolff 4y ago
  People who are influenced by a similar set of ideas tend to adopt similar verbiage. Read a bunch of papers in computational complexity theory (or any other subject) and you will see similar phrases pop up. Heck, compare hacker news comments with some other forum website and you will probably notice subtle language differences.
• xboxnolifes 4y ago
  These terms make perfect sense to use if your audience is someone like the HN crowd. Show a hint of direct support for crypto around here, and it starts to sound like a Twitter thread against an antivaxxer.
• tshaddox 4y ago
  It's group lingo like any other group. Probably initially develops as a useful shorthand for them to discuss things they discuss proportionally more frequently than the general population, but also quickly becomes a signal for who's in the group and who's an outsider.
• anm89 4y ago
  His argument has nothing to do with being bullish or bearish so why would he say he's bullish?
• afarrell 4y ago
  > Why not just say "why I'm still bullish on crypto even though everyone says the opposite"? If you would like to understand why they use weird vocabulary, here is a request which I expect will induce frustration and then clarity: “Please explain how someone can be similar to a bovine in their relationship to crypto”
  • deeviant 4y ago
    > “Please explain how someone can be similar to a bovine in their relationship to crypto” Oh, that's easy. When looking at the carbon footprint per unit calorie, bovine flesh, is much larger than vegetarian options. Same with water and land use as well. It's actually significantly worse for your health as well. There are practically no up sides to consuming beef, except the taste. That's what it means when somebody is bullish on crypto: they want a currency that has little upside and is horrible for environment.
• prawn 4y ago
  I think that in part it is defensive writing. Almost required behaviour on the modern internet if you want to have a reasonable discussion.
• solveit 4y ago
  "Bullish" is a terrible word to describe his position, for one thing. Scott doesn't claim crypto will appreciate in price, which is the standard meaning of the word. Nor does he make the weaker claim that crypto is net good for society. He merely claims that crypto is sometimes genuinely good, without saying much about how the pros compare to the cons. So all he is really saying is "I hate crypto less than some other people, who see literally zero redeeming qualities", and his title gets that point across fairly well.
• dalmo3 4y ago
  > they use phrases like "less wrong", "mildly opinionated" or now "less than infinite". > Is there some reasoning behind those phrases? Rejecting the null hypothesis as a way of life? Not being snarky, but perhaps dumb: of all expressions above, "null hypothesis" is the one I understood the least.
• doitLP 4y ago
  Definitely an in group vocabulary. This article is actually quite light on the lingo, but a couple other big ones are “a priori” and “update your priors”. Basically an attempt at applying statistical reasoning to reasoning in everyday life. I don’t have a problem with the vocabulary as much as the way this group speaks: upspeak, overuse of “kind of” when they don’t mean “kind of” and a peculiar sort of thinking stutter when formulating a statement. It’s amazing how prevalent it is.
  • coffeebeqn 4y ago
    I took a freshman philosophy course
• notacoward 4y ago
  I think it's a kind of tone adjustment. Looked at charitably, it's a way to "soften the blow" of disagreement by phrasing one's contradiction in a less less absolute or certain way. Looked at less charitably, it's a way to disagree and still leave room to walk away (accusing one's interlocutor of unjustified hostility) if backing up that disagreement becomes too inconvenient. Either way it's a bit of a hedge, kind of like "it seems to me" or "some might say" in slightly fancier clothes. Personally I find it a bit smug and tiresome.