My beef with Yudikowsky is he's only got a hammer, so all the world's a nail. It's not that he doesn't know other tools exist. It's not that he hasn't seen screwdrivers on the shelves of others. It's that he's a zealous proselytizer of the Church of Hammers and all other tools are sacrilegious at best and witchcraft at worst. More than that, he uses rhetorical sleight-of-hand in order to make the casual observer think the screwdriver in his hand is actually a hammer, therefore all tasks can be accomplished with hammers. And should you call him on it, you're a heathen. And take it from a studied and practiced vomiter of word salad: SSC is a vomit of word salad. If you have a bright enough blizzard of bullshit you can hide false equivalency, groundless assertions and appeal-to-authority fallacies well enough to confuse the casual reader into believing they're ingesting facts and well-reasoned arguments. This is the basic problem of the whole LessWrong microcosm: "It's not my opinion that women are irrational, it's a scientific fact. Here, let me snow you." "The world is really simple, it's just that everyone else is doing it completely fucking wrong." It all boils down to variations of "things will be different when I'm in charge" and the fact that uncredentialed sci fi nerds are bloviating about human nature and sociology is A-OK with other uncredentialed sci fid nerds but FOR FUCK'S SAKE this shit? This is NEVER going to help you: - win an argument - convince anyone of anything - figure out what your girlfriend is thinking - help you understand why poor white men voted Trump - get you laid - help you buy a car - teach you how to poach an egg ...or anything else useful. The phrase "deep research by Wikipedians far and wide" should scare the fucking socks off of you, not convince you you're imbibing from the font of wisdom.No, I will not tell you how I did it. Learn to respect the unknown unknowns.
I have a sense that being versed in the predictable biases of human cognition is useful only as a soft or secondary skill. By itself, the knowledge is pretty useless and can even be paralyzing. There's no primary benefit, except to those who have managed to market and bill themselves as some sort of biases spotter. But it's not useless. I think my exposure to some of this literature has imparted humility in how I conduct myself, both in text and in person. No one wins an argument by pointing and shouting, "You're committing the base rate fallacy, a typical form of extension neglect." But just like I've grown to trust those who are aware of their own limitations -- something I recall you value, i.e. the acoustical engineer lecturer who admitted his ignorance during a conference you attended -- I think humility is security, and can be dead sexy. I can't point to it and say that's why I get laid, but it I think it plays a role. I'm not saying that anyone who's opposed to Yudkowsky et al is bashing rationality as an ideal good. But I'm at a loss as to who then you all read or aspire to emulate (if anyone is even still in that part of their lives). Furthermore, it's a bit unsettling. Apparently Yudkowsky and SSC are quite literally something close to evil, and I'm here unawares and asking if anyone else likes their bible. I'm in denial that I can be this far off the trail.
bootzie: I'm with you. I haven't read Yudkowsky, but I have occasionally read interesting stuff on SSC. You say this: Point 1: Being versed in biases of our own cognition is very very useful. Our biases lead us to all kinds of dangerous, relationship-destroying assumptions. I don't want to get into a spitting match with kb, but the link that he called "this shit" - has some important and useful biases to be aware of. Knowing our biases might not help us win an argument, but it will help us avoid a shitload of arguments that we don't need to get into in the first place. Point 2: So awareness of cognitive biases is good. It's probably reasonable to assume that everything we think and do is a result of biases learned from our culture and society. Everything needs to be questioned. "Why do we believe what we believe?" What biases lead us to believe it? I've been quietly wondering what Kool-Aid I am drinking? My definition of Kool-Aid: a sweet sugary drink that will kill you.I have a sense that being versed in the predictable biases of human cognition is useful only as a soft or secondary skill.
I think humility is security, and can be dead sexy. I can't point to it and say that's why I get laid, but it I think it plays a role.
Wow, you are so right about this. Why? because if you don't assume that you know everything, you have a chance to learn stuff. You can ask your lover what she or he likes - you need humility to even ask.
Thanks lil. I can't take credit for the insight of the sexiness inherent to humility. We all intuit it I suspect, but a friend distilled it as: a measure of revealed vulnerability is one of the best things that can happen to a relationship. My fear in starting this discussion was that I was running the risk of so tame and tepid a starting point as "rationality is good" that no one would bite. Instead I'm feeling like I need to get my head checked because some of my sources of rationality and self- & outer-inquiry are so far from some of hubski's ideal that I run the danger of literally falling in with bad people for it.
You missed the basic point about "the acoustical engineer lecturer" which is really problematic as the last time I quoted it, it was legit in a takedown of The Last Psychiatrist: It's this simple: SSC, Yudikowsky and the whole LessWrong constellation aren't saying "I don't know. Does anybody know?" They're saying "I know beyond any doubt and anybody who says I don't is the enemy." If you put forth a hypothesis you are inviting scrutiny, criticism and exploration of that hypothesis by others. In this way the hypothesis is tested and regardless of the outcome, someone's getting an education. The knowledgebase of the local ecosystem will increase. If you instead put forth a maxim you are silencing dissent, discouraging investigation and drawing battle lines between schools of thought. Leo Baranek? Here's this thing I know. Let me explain it. Things I don't know I'm eager to learn. Eliezer Yudikowsky? If I'm talking about it, I know it and if you disagree, you're wrong. We've done this before: I know you love the guy so I'll hold back but this is weapons-grade bullshit. I coulda sworn I've posted SSC before. Apparently I've only even commented on it once. It's not that I think they have nothing to say - the Yudikowsky box experiment is primal Faustian-level intrigue and I love the idea of it. but they're just so fucking full of themselves and so far beyond the ability to see the limits of their insight that reading their diatribes in a non-critical frame of mind makes you think you've learned a fact when you've learned an opinion. And it's not that they don't defend their opinions. It's that they view their opinions as beyond the need of defense. That graph you linked? That's taxonomy. That's a naming-of-things, not a knowledge-of-things. Right - no one has ever won an argument by pointing and shouting "base rate fallacy" except on the Internet. The Internet is a place that confounds "argument from authority" and "appeal to authority fallacy" in pretty much every Reddit thread ever. Taxonomy without insight allows choads to think that someone is unqualified to speak about something if they quote their own expertise. Boys can name a hundred different dinosaurs. Doesn't mean they'd fare any better on the plains of the Cretaceous.The basic point of it is this: trust the people who tell you they don't know.
This is so offensively wrong it's infuriating me.
SSC often makes highlight posts of comments pulled from the discussion, often containing critical commentary. That, and the regular open threads, strike me as the behavior of someone open to doubt, forming new opinions, revising old ones. He often verbalizes his reticence about stating a point or the validity of the data he's using. I'm practically unfamiliar with Yudkowsky, but it seems like he's the main perpetrator of this kind of weaponized certainty. Actually, scratch that. That title definitely goes to TLP. But the thrust of your comment applies if I had indeed made you think that I value certainty over self-conscious doubt. I strive not to, as comforting as certainty can be sometimes.
It's interesting you mention this because as I was wrapping up to go populate a rack and terminate 18 runs of CAT5 I had an insight into myself, in particular - Why I don't blog - Why I don't trust bloggers Let's unpack: Right - the author gets to pick and choose from among those who interact with him, while deleting and censoring those he chooses not to. He has the mic, he chooses who he hands it to, and he turns it on and off at will. That's not free-ranging discussion - that's shaped discussion and it's a very different thing. Wade into /r/The_Donald and take a look at the "commentary" there. do you see much dissent? The header of your linked post: [Content note: Gender, relationships, feminism, manosphere. Quotes, without endorsing and with quite a bit of mocking, mean arguments by terrible people. Some analogical discussion of fatphobia, poorphobia, Islamophobia. This topic is personally enraging to me and I don’t promise I can treat it fairly.] I comment. I often comment where I'm not welcome, and I often say negative things. Put it this way: I'm just as interested in capital-T Truth as anybody else, I just don't think I have it. And in 40 years of searching, I don't think anybody else does, either. Those who are willing to share their journey are interesting and trustworthy. Those who share their arrival are suspect. And for me, I'm not interested in publishing "this is what I think about something" despite the fact that people have been asking me to do so for a decade or more. Because really? "this is what I think RIGHT NOW" is closer to the truth. "this is what I think IN RESPONSE TO THAT" is another caveat. And the blogging platform strikes me as fundamentally dishonest: I mean, yeah - I can pick a bunch of comments that disagree with my nuance and answer them as an illustration of my open-mindedness. But nobody wants to read me putting forth a firmly-held notion and then getting into a pissing match with someone else who disagrees. Who learns from that? And who can trust it? I think bloggers are open to having their nuances discussed so that they can better shape their message for their admirers. I think the pseudo-intellectual "rationalist" sphere is particularly guilty of this - if you disagree, you're irrational and not worthy of debate. However, if you disagree on nuance, on taxonomy, on particulars... well, you're increasing their pagerank so all aboard.SSC often makes highlight posts of comments pulled from the discussion, often containing critical commentary. That, and the regular open threads, strike me as the behavior of someone open to doubt, forming new opinions, revising old ones.
SSC often makes highlight posts of comments pulled from the discussion
[COMMENT THREAD CLOSED GO AWAY]
I bought a squarespace last year in order to blog with it and after an intro post I never posted again. Blogging has evolved. I think bloggers of 2004 would be astonished to hear that blog's are now the more permanent features of the internet, and the place for ephemera and free-flowing discussion actually happens in forums or social media, where the stakes and standards are lesser. A blog feels like it needs to be more polished and formal, and that friction was enough for me to not use it. In the meantime, I've been all over hubski. Go figure. It seems like we completely disagree about SSC (which I also want to distinguish from LessWrong). So far I know of only two posts that the comment threads are closed on, and it's for reasons of personal comfort. There are hundreds of more posts where the comments are completely open. I'm not saying that no editorializing happens as a result of how Scott Alexander decides to interact or showcase the discussion. But for the platform, he goes above and beyond what I would ever expect or demand of someone else. Furthermore, I don't see him viewing his own opinions as beyond the need of defense. I get the sense repeatedly that he went out, amassed data, and only formed opinions after the fact. I certainly disagree with some of his conclusions and arguments, but I don't see what apparently you, Odder, and a handful of others are convinced of, which is his and Yudkowsky's rank irrationality, reactionaryism, and downright wickedness.
kb also touches upon the subject of blogging, which I'd like to share my thoughts about. Because this is blogging: sharing thoughts. Communication is sharing thoughts; some of them just happened to be based on education that the other person doesn't have, academical or personal. Nobody has The Truth, and some people even recognize it - but people still want to share what they know. Some - in hopes that it will help another human being who hasn't arrived to the conclusion they've met and who might benefit from it or the process of its birth in the blogger's mind (see Raptitude by David Cain for an example of such sharing). Nobody can give you The Ladder, but sharing a stair or two is nice, especially when those don't run out. I won't comment on how Eliezer and his followers treat different topics, in comments or otherwise, because I don't have enough experience with them for such an analysis. I just want to point out that the old man kb isn't holding the cup of truth, either, generalizing about bloggers as if they're a homogenous bunch. Just like audioengineers and writers, one would have to presume. Meanwhile: Apparently, this doesn't apply to rationalists or, the more I see it, anyone else whose Internet handle isn't "kleinbl00". Keep in mind: this is from his personal subreddit, where he shares links about himself.Redditors tend to overestimate my knowledge about things because I only comment on things I know and understand.