10 ms·

If anything, Scott is underselling himself, and could probably argue circles against the average educated person. Debates are the rationalists bread and butter

If anything, Scott is underselling himself, and could probably argue circles against the average educated person. Debates are the rationalists bread and butter, and you should expect them to be better at you the same way you would expect a trained boxer to beat you in a fistfight.

bannedbybros 3y ago
lmao
bitzun 3y ago
I've been to dozens of rationalist meetups (I don't know why), people are constantly talking out of their ass while constantly referencing contrived rhetorical devices. A lot of "just asking questions", confidently asserting solutions to e.g. palestine, cartels, etc. and contending with things TV pundits say. I like some of Scott Alexander's writing, but "rationalists" in general online or IRL have not been very impressive to me.
- helicalmix 3y ago
  Haha yeah, I've been to rationalist meetups too, and have come to the same conclusion that I don't like them very much. Too much IQ stroking for my tastes. Scott specifically though, has an established history of thinking through arguments that I find much better than most, and I still think someone who trains at this stuff will do better. To extend my analogy a little further from before, if you go to a boxing gym or boxing enthusiast meetup, there will be plenty of people there who like the idea of fighting, but don't know how to fight. That doesn't mean that a trained boxer still won't be tough in the ring though.
  - staticman2 3y ago
    With boxing you know who won because the judges say so. If Scott argues something at a party, and the other person says "I don't know why you are wrong but you are." Who is to say who "won"? Scott comes away thinking he's an amazing thinker. The other person comes away thinking he is a contrarian good at inventing plausible sounding nonsense. Who won here?
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
      I think part of the trouble many here are having is that they don't even understand why Scott goes to the party, or argues, or wants to convince people of his arguments. Surely, if no one reading my comment here ever agrees with me, my life doesn't change for the worse at all. And if people do agree with me, again, my life doesn't change for the better. I'm mostly here to learn from you people, you sometimes say interesting things I am unaware of, or introduce interesting perspectives I might not have seen for myself. I have noticed among humans though, that you argue and debate like this, because you're basically monkeys and monkeys do the social monkey thing. You're trying to achieve higher status by climbing above the other monkeys, whose status will lower (if only a little). This is not as entertaining as violent fights, but much less risky (at least in some cultures). You're posturing. It has little appeal to me. I am unable to determine if it holds appeal for the rest of you, or if you just can't help yourselves.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
        Consider the idea that some people feel that they benefit internally from having the experience of becoming less wrong than they were at some earlier time. There are many ways of attempting to become less wrong, and without doubt many of those who follow those ways have other motives. But I do think that there is room for people for whom there is an intrinsic motivation in seeking out the experience of discovering that what they used to think is less correct than something they've just been introduced to.
        naasking 3y ago
        > Consider the idea that some people feel that they benefit internally from having the experience of becoming less wrong than they were at some earlier time. And helping others become less wrong by sharing one's perspective that was shaped by experience and accumulated knowledge.
  - pdonis 3y ago
    > Scott specifically though, has an established history of thinking through arguments that I find much better than most He has an established history of writing down detailed articles about arguments, yes. Unfortunately, a significant number of his articles contain schoolboy errors that anyone who wants to claim they are better at thinking through arguments than the average person should never have made. I'll mention just one such article: http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/12/01/empireforest-fire/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/12/01/empireforest-fire/ Scott says: "...democratic nations, like the US and UK, which have gone three hundred or so years with only the tiniest traces of state-sponsored violence (and those traces, like the camps for the Japanese during WWII, have not come from the Left)." The two obvious, egregious schoolboy errors here are: (1) Don't wars count as "state-sponsored violence"? The US and UK certainly haven't gone three hundred years without wars. And some of those wars were civil wars, so even the lame excuse of "well, wars are violence, but not against the state's own people" doesn't count. And even if we let that pass, what about the US's treatment of Native Americans? What about the UK's treatment of Ireland? And so on. To say that the US and UK have gone three hundred years with "only the tiniest traces of state-sponsored violence" shows a level of historical ignorance that is just staggering. (2) But even if we let all of the above pass: doesn't Scott know that the President who interned Japanese citizens in WWII was from the Left?
    - digital-cygnet 3y ago
      While Scott does make errors, I've found he works hard to avoid making them and forthright when he does (e.g., not everyone has a Mistakes page in the main navigation bar of their site[1]) What you're missing in your example is that, in context, the state-sponsored violence he's talking about is "against one's own people" (e.g., he also refers to it as a "reign of terror" a few times, like those of Robespierre, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc). I think there's a difference of kind between say the 19th century US's (awful) treatment of Native Americans (who were explicitly treated as "other" very consistently) and Stalin's (also awful) dekulakization (in which one-time typical members of Russian society were declared enemies of the state and purged). So his point isn't that the UK and US have done no wrong, it's that despite having democratic systems for centuries that haven't gone through the kind of reign of terror that Scott's interlocutors claim they should have [1] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/mistakes https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/mistakes
- wharvle 3y ago
  My current hot take, as a longtime casual outside observer of the movement, is that the Rationalism movement is basically just Mensa with no membership requirements. And if you know Mensa's reputation....
nerpderp82 3y ago
Debates aren't about arriving at the truth. They are rhetorical combat to 'win' an argument. Most people don't understand that.
postmodest 3y ago
LLM's have really made me realize that "using language" is a shallow skill, but detecting bullshit is a deep skill. And anyone who read Velikovsky and thought they had made a good argument, is someone who needs to hone the deeper skillset. Debate isn't genius. There are famous politicians who were RENOWN in law school for their debate skills, who are clearly idiots. Holding up debate skills as an intellectual achievement is like praising someone for their ability to hold in a fart.

bannedbybros 3y ago

lmao

bitzun 3y ago

I've been to dozens of rationalist meetups (I don't know why), people are constantly talking out of their ass while constantly referencing contrived rhetorical devices. A lot of "just asking questions", confidently asserting solutions to e.g. palestine, cartels, etc. and contending with things TV pundits say. I like some of Scott Alexander's writing, but "rationalists" in general online or IRL have not been very impressive to me.

helicalmix 3y ago
Haha yeah, I've been to rationalist meetups too, and have come to the same conclusion that I don't like them very much. Too much IQ stroking for my tastes. Scott specifically though, has an established history of thinking through arguments that I find much better than most, and I still think someone who trains at this stuff will do better. To extend my analogy a little further from before, if you go to a boxing gym or boxing enthusiast meetup, there will be plenty of people there who like the idea of fighting, but don't know how to fight. That doesn't mean that a trained boxer still won't be tough in the ring though.
- staticman2 3y ago
  With boxing you know who won because the judges say so. If Scott argues something at a party, and the other person says "I don't know why you are wrong but you are." Who is to say who "won"? Scott comes away thinking he's an amazing thinker. The other person comes away thinking he is a contrarian good at inventing plausible sounding nonsense. Who won here?
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
    I think part of the trouble many here are having is that they don't even understand why Scott goes to the party, or argues, or wants to convince people of his arguments. Surely, if no one reading my comment here ever agrees with me, my life doesn't change for the worse at all. And if people do agree with me, again, my life doesn't change for the better. I'm mostly here to learn from you people, you sometimes say interesting things I am unaware of, or introduce interesting perspectives I might not have seen for myself. I have noticed among humans though, that you argue and debate like this, because you're basically monkeys and monkeys do the social monkey thing. You're trying to achieve higher status by climbing above the other monkeys, whose status will lower (if only a little). This is not as entertaining as violent fights, but much less risky (at least in some cultures). You're posturing. It has little appeal to me. I am unable to determine if it holds appeal for the rest of you, or if you just can't help yourselves.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
      Consider the idea that some people feel that they benefit internally from having the experience of becoming less wrong than they were at some earlier time. There are many ways of attempting to become less wrong, and without doubt many of those who follow those ways have other motives. But I do think that there is room for people for whom there is an intrinsic motivation in seeking out the experience of discovering that what they used to think is less correct than something they've just been introduced to.
      - naasking 3y ago
        > Consider the idea that some people feel that they benefit internally from having the experience of becoming less wrong than they were at some earlier time. And helping others become less wrong by sharing one's perspective that was shaped by experience and accumulated knowledge.
- pdonis 3y ago
  > Scott specifically though, has an established history of thinking through arguments that I find much better than most He has an established history of writing down detailed articles about arguments, yes. Unfortunately, a significant number of his articles contain schoolboy errors that anyone who wants to claim they are better at thinking through arguments than the average person should never have made. I'll mention just one such article: http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/12/01/empireforest-fire/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/12/01/empireforest-fire/ Scott says: "...democratic nations, like the US and UK, which have gone three hundred or so years with only the tiniest traces of state-sponsored violence (and those traces, like the camps for the Japanese during WWII, have not come from the Left)." The two obvious, egregious schoolboy errors here are: (1) Don't wars count as "state-sponsored violence"? The US and UK certainly haven't gone three hundred years without wars. And some of those wars were civil wars, so even the lame excuse of "well, wars are violence, but not against the state's own people" doesn't count. And even if we let that pass, what about the US's treatment of Native Americans? What about the UK's treatment of Ireland? And so on. To say that the US and UK have gone three hundred years with "only the tiniest traces of state-sponsored violence" shows a level of historical ignorance that is just staggering. (2) But even if we let all of the above pass: doesn't Scott know that the President who interned Japanese citizens in WWII was from the Left?
  - digital-cygnet 3y ago
    While Scott does make errors, I've found he works hard to avoid making them and forthright when he does (e.g., not everyone has a Mistakes page in the main navigation bar of their site[1]) What you're missing in your example is that, in context, the state-sponsored violence he's talking about is "against one's own people" (e.g., he also refers to it as a "reign of terror" a few times, like those of Robespierre, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc). I think there's a difference of kind between say the 19th century US's (awful) treatment of Native Americans (who were explicitly treated as "other" very consistently) and Stalin's (also awful) dekulakization (in which one-time typical members of Russian society were declared enemies of the state and purged). So his point isn't that the UK and US have done no wrong, it's that despite having democratic systems for centuries that haven't gone through the kind of reign of terror that Scott's interlocutors claim they should have [1] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/mistakes https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/mistakes
wharvle 3y ago
My current hot take, as a longtime casual outside observer of the movement, is that the Rationalism movement is basically just Mensa with no membership requirements. And if you know Mensa's reputation....

nerpderp82 3y ago

Debates aren't about arriving at the truth. They are rhetorical combat to 'win' an argument. Most people don't understand that.

postmodest 3y ago

LLM's have really made me realize that "using language" is a shallow skill, but detecting bullshit is a deep skill. And anyone who read Velikovsky and thought they had made a good argument, is someone who needs to hone the deeper skillset. Debate isn't genius. There are famous politicians who were RENOWN in law school for their debate skills, who are clearly idiots. Holding up debate skills as an intellectual achievement is like praising someone for their ability to hold in a fart.