6 ms·

Actually, one of the coolest things, to me, about LessWrong, is the fact that the community as a whole is arguably more rational than the founder. Eliezer's own

by gwillen 14y ago

Actually, one of the coolest things, to me, about LessWrong, is the fact that the community as a whole is arguably more rational than the founder. Eliezer's own LessWrong comments have been downvoted many times, and a number of those were during the "basilisk" debacle. Many of the site's regulars were on the side of sanity in that incident. So I think it's fair to tar Eliezer himself for that incident, but I don't think it's a good indictment of the site's community as a whole.

Cushman 14y ago
> the "basilisk" debacle Hadn't heard of this, just read the RationalWiki article-- and it is fabulous. LW literally derived religion and then took that seriously enough to cover it up. That's fantastic.
- danielweber 14y ago
  That was fascinating. "Reading the sequences" also gives off this vibe that feels like ordering Scientology texts.
  - Cushman 14y ago
    As does the pervasive use of acronyms. Not to harp on it too much, since I don't think they're bad people, but there's a cultish vibe for sure.
  - roguecoder 14y ago
    Much of the practice of Scientology is based on theater exercises designed to do exactly the same thing as LessWrong. The similarities are unsurprising. Personally, I have yet to see any evidence suggesting rationality is even desirable. The most irrational people, selfless, story-oriented, tolerante of multiple conflicting subjective "realities", interested in the feelings and passions of people around them no matter what they are, are also those I most enjoy interacting with. Everyone I have met who strives for rationality is at least a bit of a prick.
    - planetguy 14y ago
      > Personally, I have yet to see any evidence suggesting rationality is even desirable Interesting idea. I think a certain amount of rationality is desirable -- people of below median or even near-median rationality go round making really stupid decisions which screw up their lives. On the other hand, once you've stopped hiding from imaginary demons, buying magnetic charm bracelets and drinking venti caramel frappucinos, further effort in becoming more rational may be severely diminishing returns. How would it really help me if I were more rational and less subject to cognitive biases? I don't think it would help me much in making my day-to-day decisions. I honestly don't think it would help me in my work, either. It might well help in tackling really, really difficult questions where it's extremely difficult to disentangle your own feelings from the correct answers -- things like "What is the probability that humans will one day achieve immortality", or "What is the fairest possible tax system?" But would answering those questions actually enhance my life? Humans will achieve immortality, or not, regardless of whether I correctly predict the probability circa 2012, and even if I did come up with the fairest possible tax system I have no chance of actually getting it implemented, so it would just cause me frustration. The people who did really great things in history -- whoever you might choose as your examples -- did they achieve it by being significantly more rational than everyone else? Not really, no. They did it by achieving some baseline level of rationality and then being extremely good at other stuff.
      - cheatercheater 14y ago
        > The people who did really great things in history -- whoever you might choose as your examples -- did they achieve it by being significantly more rational than everyone else? Not really, no. Observational bias. Rationality of thought process in non-technical situations is rarely externalized; unless you talk of scientists, you're highly unlikely to remark on how highly rational he is being. In fact, the only way I can come up with to make such a statement fit in literary fashion is when you're making a quip on someone: "It was highly rational of Nixon to start the Vietnam War."
        planetguy 14y ago

by gwillen 14y ago

Cushman 14y ago

> the "basilisk" debacle Hadn't heard of this, just read the RationalWiki article-- and it is fabulous. LW literally derived religion and then took that seriously enough to cover it up. That's fantastic.

danielweber 14y ago
That was fascinating. "Reading the sequences" also gives off this vibe that feels like ordering Scientology texts.
- Cushman 14y ago
  As does the pervasive use of acronyms. Not to harp on it too much, since I don't think they're bad people, but there's a cultish vibe for sure.
- roguecoder 14y ago
  Much of the practice of Scientology is based on theater exercises designed to do exactly the same thing as LessWrong. The similarities are unsurprising. Personally, I have yet to see any evidence suggesting rationality is even desirable. The most irrational people, selfless, story-oriented, tolerante of multiple conflicting subjective "realities", interested in the feelings and passions of people around them no matter what they are, are also those I most enjoy interacting with. Everyone I have met who strives for rationality is at least a bit of a prick.
  - planetguy 14y ago
    > Personally, I have yet to see any evidence suggesting rationality is even desirable Interesting idea. I think a certain amount of rationality is desirable -- people of below median or even near-median rationality go round making really stupid decisions which screw up their lives. On the other hand, once you've stopped hiding from imaginary demons, buying magnetic charm bracelets and drinking venti caramel frappucinos, further effort in becoming more rational may be severely diminishing returns. How would it really help me if I were more rational and less subject to cognitive biases? I don't think it would help me much in making my day-to-day decisions. I honestly don't think it would help me in my work, either. It might well help in tackling really, really difficult questions where it's extremely difficult to disentangle your own feelings from the correct answers -- things like "What is the probability that humans will one day achieve immortality", or "What is the fairest possible tax system?" But would answering those questions actually enhance my life? Humans will achieve immortality, or not, regardless of whether I correctly predict the probability circa 2012, and even if I did come up with the fairest possible tax system I have no chance of actually getting it implemented, so it would just cause me frustration. The people who did really great things in history -- whoever you might choose as your examples -- did they achieve it by being significantly more rational than everyone else? Not really, no. They did it by achieving some baseline level of rationality and then being extremely good at other stuff.
    - cheatercheater 14y ago
      > The people who did really great things in history -- whoever you might choose as your examples -- did they achieve it by being significantly more rational than everyone else? Not really, no. Observational bias. Rationality of thought process in non-technical situations is rarely externalized; unless you talk of scientists, you're highly unlikely to remark on how highly rational he is being. In fact, the only way I can come up with to make such a statement fit in literary fashion is when you're making a quip on someone: "It was highly rational of Nixon to start the Vietnam War."
      - planetguy 14y ago