5 ms·

If you do not value rationality and believe in the primary of the truth, you will hate it. This is not an apolitical story, it is in many ways a manifesto.

aaronem 12y ago
I value a tolerable prose style. Sadly, that is not something which Mr. Yudkowsky can in honesty count among his merits, be they what they may.
nemo 12y ago
I am very sure you could value rationality and still hate the writing. Terms like 'valuing rationality' or believing in the primacy of truth (I think that's what you meant) don't have universally accepted definitions. A rational person might readily find the novel to an Eliezer Yudkowsky's propaganda-novel along the lines of an Ayn Rand novel, and not find it a well written or enjoyable story. The number of parallels between Rand and Yudkowsky are really fascinating to me, Rand and Yudkowsky really seem to be birds of a feather.
- kbenson 12y ago
  Nobody has said that if you do value truth and rationality you will like it, so I'm not really sure who you are arguing here.
  - nemo 12y ago
    OP stated that a person person who did not value reason would hate the writing. I just stated the converse, that person who valued reason might easily hate the writing too.
    - kbenson 12y ago
      The converse of the original statement is that if you hate the writing, you don't value rationality and truth. You didn't state the converse, you seem to have taken it as a starting point and disproved it. But nobody was arguing the converse was true, which was my point.
      - nemo 12y ago
        You are right, I stated the alternate case of those who value rationality and truth as opposed to those who do not, rather than the converse. Sorry, I was being too loose with my language there. As to what the other was arguing, I was chiming in, not posing a critique, so your point is peripheral. In discussions one is permitted to add thoughts that are related without it being some kind of intellectual sparring. If I were sparring I'd have debated the claim that those who don't value rationality and truth would dislike the book (which is a hard claim to justify), but that would have been a pointless exercise since I don't really care. I did care to point out that rational, truth-seeking people could find that the book was unbearable, since that was my experience and something I thought was worth noting. If you disagree, then please feel free to explain, I'd be interested to learn how rational people must agree that it was a well written piece of fan fiction.
        kbenson 12y ago
        I don't disagree. I just thought your comment, when taken as an individual statement, was obvious enough that it didn't need to be said (at least not again). I chose to interpret it as a refutation, which was my mistake.
snowwrestler 12y ago
Furthering my impression that LessWrong is analogous to a religious cult.
- loup-vaillant 12y ago
  Cults rarely debate about their own cultishness. http://lesswrong.com/lw/md/cultish_countercultishness/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/md/cultish_countercultishness/
  - aetherson 12y ago
    How do you know? Seriously. It intuitively appeals to me that people in cults might not have the self-awareness to debate their own cultishness, but, then, I don't really know anyone in a cult. At one point I did meet a couple at a party who were involved in... something... that involved homeopathy and a spiritual leader. And they chuckled and said that they might be in a cult.
    - loup-vaillant 12y ago
      > How do you know? Hmm… I don't. Oops. That said, having read most of LessWrong, my impression was that what is said there is mostly obvious in retrospect. Like, "Of course, how could I not see that?". My guess is, I already believed most of the sequences before I even read them. When a community matches my own world view so closely, I just can't feel any cult, and I tend to assume there is none.
      - TeMPOraL 12y ago
        > That said, having read most of LessWrong, my impression was that what is said there is mostly obvious in retrospect. Like, "Of course, how could I not see that?". My guess is, I already believed most of the sequences before I even read them. I had exactly the same reaction. Most of it seemed obvious in retrospect. Heck, few years ago (when I had a lot more of free time) I spent many weeks thinking about how could I code a smart virtual assistant/proto-AI. Then later, after reading the sequences I realized that I figured out many of described concepts myself, except I lacked the proper formalisms and maybe haven't thought some things thoroughly enough.
loup-vaillant 12y ago
While I understand that by "rationality" and "truth", you may not mean the same thing than I do, I fail to see how they could possibly be at odds. I mean, if you value truth, you'd better be rational, or you're not going to find it.

aaronem 12y ago

I value a tolerable prose style. Sadly, that is not something which Mr. Yudkowsky can in honesty count among his merits, be they what they may.

nemo 12y ago

I am very sure you could value rationality and still hate the writing. Terms like 'valuing rationality' or believing in the primacy of truth (I think that's what you meant) don't have universally accepted definitions. A rational person might readily find the novel to an Eliezer Yudkowsky's propaganda-novel along the lines of an Ayn Rand novel, and not find it a well written or enjoyable story. The number of parallels between Rand and Yudkowsky are really fascinating to me, Rand and Yudkowsky really seem to be birds of a feather.

kbenson 12y ago
Nobody has said that if you do value truth and rationality you will like it, so I'm not really sure who you are arguing here.
- nemo 12y ago
  OP stated that a person person who did not value reason would hate the writing. I just stated the converse, that person who valued reason might easily hate the writing too.
  - kbenson 12y ago
    The converse of the original statement is that if you hate the writing, you don't value rationality and truth. You didn't state the converse, you seem to have taken it as a starting point and disproved it. But nobody was arguing the converse was true, which was my point.
    - nemo 12y ago
      You are right, I stated the alternate case of those who value rationality and truth as opposed to those who do not, rather than the converse. Sorry, I was being too loose with my language there. As to what the other was arguing, I was chiming in, not posing a critique, so your point is peripheral. In discussions one is permitted to add thoughts that are related without it being some kind of intellectual sparring. If I were sparring I'd have debated the claim that those who don't value rationality and truth would dislike the book (which is a hard claim to justify), but that would have been a pointless exercise since I don't really care. I did care to point out that rational, truth-seeking people could find that the book was unbearable, since that was my experience and something I thought was worth noting. If you disagree, then please feel free to explain, I'd be interested to learn how rational people must agree that it was a well written piece of fan fiction.
      - kbenson 12y ago
        I don't disagree. I just thought your comment, when taken as an individual statement, was obvious enough that it didn't need to be said (at least not again). I chose to interpret it as a refutation, which was my mistake.

snowwrestler 12y ago

Furthering my impression that LessWrong is analogous to a religious cult.

loup-vaillant 12y ago
Cults rarely debate about their own cultishness. http://lesswrong.com/lw/md/cultish_countercultishness/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/md/cultish_countercultishness/
- aetherson 12y ago
  How do you know? Seriously. It intuitively appeals to me that people in cults might not have the self-awareness to debate their own cultishness, but, then, I don't really know anyone in a cult. At one point I did meet a couple at a party who were involved in... something... that involved homeopathy and a spiritual leader. And they chuckled and said that they might be in a cult.
  - loup-vaillant 12y ago
    > How do you know? Hmm… I don't. Oops. That said, having read most of LessWrong, my impression was that what is said there is mostly obvious in retrospect. Like, "Of course, how could I not see that?". My guess is, I already believed most of the sequences before I even read them. When a community matches my own world view so closely, I just can't feel any cult, and I tend to assume there is none.
    - TeMPOraL 12y ago
      > That said, having read most of LessWrong, my impression was that what is said there is mostly obvious in retrospect. Like, "Of course, how could I not see that?". My guess is, I already believed most of the sequences before I even read them. I had exactly the same reaction. Most of it seemed obvious in retrospect. Heck, few years ago (when I had a lot more of free time) I spent many weeks thinking about how could I code a smart virtual assistant/proto-AI. Then later, after reading the sequences I realized that I figured out many of described concepts myself, except I lacked the proper formalisms and maybe haven't thought some things thoroughly enough.

loup-vaillant 12y ago

While I understand that by "rationality" and "truth", you may not mean the same thing than I do, I fail to see how they could possibly be at odds. I mean, if you value truth, you'd better be rational, or you're not going to find it.