I’m a reader of SSC and LW. I’m actually going through “the
sequences” right now. I subscribe to this sub because I want to know
what the people who disagree with the people I’m reading have to say. I
still love SSC and LW but this sub helps keep me from idolizing them too
much and believing what they say without question.
Same. I don't like the way-too-serious vibe you get from some people on those sites, so it's nice to see people poke fun at it. Also, I find EY pretty insufferable. At the same time, some of the people here are guilty of the exact same thing and take themselves very seriously.
Both places have value and I like to get that wider perspective. It feels like that's part of the intent of the whole rationalist thing right? That people need to remember that they're probably wrong about everything and need to look at alternative ideas.
Yeah. I felt like writing this sub off would've been the opposite of what an ideal rationalist would do. If anything, to do so would've proven them right.
That's about what I'd like to see as far as my "serious" intent of participating on this sub. And by the upvotes on your comment apparently other people feel the same way.
I was a really big fan of HPMOR, Yudkowsky’s writing helped me break
out of fundamentalist, YEC, Southern Baptist upbringing. It was around
my senior year of high school/freshman year of college I first got into
his writings.
In the years since then I’ve come to realize that the good stuff of
Yudkowsky isn’t original and his original stuff isn’t good. His writings
on cognitive biases and philosophy of science might serve as decent pop
intro but other people have said it. Some of his stuff is outright
wrong, or he intentionally choose perverse examples (torture vs
dustspecks). HPMOR suffers from transitioning from a borderline crackfic
comedy, to an Ender’s Game pastiche, to a serious and dark story.
Additionally, lesswrong and more recently Slate Star Codex attract
fringe ideas like neoreactionaries and serves as a potential gateway
drug to various iterations of fascism and libertarianism. With scc’s
“principle of charity” often letting literal Nazis say their piece
without sufficient objection, I find this subreddit an important
counterweight to that.
Overall I still like HPMOR, and slate star codex does have
interesting posts, but I also like seeing the dark side of the
“rationalist” community called out and taken down a peg.
Well said! I now tend to see the use of perverse examples as self-aggrandizement--"I can start with this statement that seems obviously horrific on its face, but through advanced sophistry and questionable analogies I can make a prima facie monstrous notion seem mildly agreeable (so long as you don't think about it *too* hard)."
I’m here to nerd bash. I work in tech, and I frequently find that I’m
alone in thinking that something’s wrong with the tech mentality
(valuing form over content, glib utilon-maximizing, inability to
empathize, being too stuck in the head, devaluing emotion,
overconfidence in humanity’s ability to shape the world, etc.). This sub
is the best I can do, unfortunately.
if these idiots didn’t have any influence on tech politics and ai
research and a bunch of silicon valley billionaires didn’t buy into this
crap I’d more than happily ignore them, but they do so I don’t see
anything wrong with venting about it here
I can’t speak for everyone, but I think a good number of the people
around here are somewhere along the sequence described here.
I’ve never been anything to do with the rationalist movement (I’m
baffled that anyone takes Yudkowsky seriously), but I came across
Scott’s writing a few years back and found him to be a thoughtful and
insightful writer, who covered a broad range of topics which matched my
interests.
This hasn’t really changed to be honest. I tend to poke my head into
this subreddit when the /r/ssc commentariat gets to me. The SSC fanbase
has, over time, skewed more and more towards an explicitly
hard-right/scientific racist userbase, to the point now where explicitly
facist/neo-nazi talking points are considered mainstream on the
subreddit.
This has caused me a fair amount of soul-searching. As /u/Epistaxis
put it in the link above, “Is it the people or the philosophy?”. It
could be that the philosophy of of ‘charitability’ towards extreme views
caused the community to fill with people holding those extreme views
(the society has ended up consisting of approximately seven zillion
witches, to steal Scott’s metaphor).
So, yeah. I still read SSC for the writing and the occational insight
porn. But when the fanbase and the rationalist nonsense gets too much,
it’s nice to come here and be around people not taking it seriously.
I find a lot of transhumanist stuff interesting and know some rats,
which means I regularly get SSC and LessWrong shit shoved in my face by
people who I generally think should know better. Since I don’t want to
burn any bridges with people I know or get blocked from any blogs I
like, I just hold my peace and then come here to let the annoyance
fade.
> I disagree with some posters here in that I think that most of the lesswrong diaspora are just ordinary liberals who say the quiet part loud
Have you seen this articulated specifically or is it more of a general atmosphere thing?
Is this distinct from "ordinary liberals who say the quiet part loud"? That was my immediate reaction to your post, but I was curious to know more. Seems to me that there are a couple of things in play:
1) Claim: Alexander is a crypto-reactionary
2) Claim: Alexander is just an ordinary liberal who says the quiet part loud^1
Seems like Alexander isn't quite an "ordinary liberal", in that he believes a few things that are over-represented in his self-styled "gray tribe". He's also got a few things going on that aren't that "ordinary liberal". For example, his response to NRx in his execrable blog post on the subject is to argue for the best possible account of it, and only intermittently to suggest that it's wrong, all while explaining convincing it could be; his response to feminism is to write a tear-jerking cri de coeur or two about how feminists are on a very personal mission to destroy him, not to mention those of his self-appointed kind.
There are plenty of bog-standard liberals who aren't predisposed to look at the world that way.
On the other hand, a lot of his ideas and predispositions are fairly milquetoast and liberal. Communism is bad, free speech is good, we should all try to be more nice to each other, and be more reasonable and introspective about what we believe and how we behave; and "I don't have to practice what I preach" is an especially "ordinary liberal" predisposition.
Seems to me that there are a lot of ordinary liberals who hold crypto-reactionary, or outright reactionary beliefs too. "Why should I have to pay taxes to fund a welfare state that endorses black laziness/makes black people lazy?" is a common enough type of liberal expression. There's certainly nothing principled which separates liberals as a group from people who say that kind of shit. Still it seems to me you can do both.
1. Incidental: one of the most sublime things in the English language is how the "s" moves from "liberals" to "says" when you move from plural to singular, and vice versa.
I don't think I've ever seen anybody say that Alexander's going to "come out of the closet" as NRx, just that he's going to do something like that on e.g. HBD.
>If I recall correctly the emotional vehemence behind his reaction to feminism is influenced by some related trauma he's suffered in the past, but cuddling up to the right while being frightened by the left is hardly unusual for technocrats. How many cheerleaders of the Iraq War have been rehabilitated by the same people who fret and fume over the antics of a dozen sophomores at Oberlin?
This doesn't sound like disagreeing with me, nor does the rest.
My intro to rationalism was through Scott, whom I had a pretty high
opinion of. I always thought Yudkowsky was an obvious crank, and was
confused to find Scott sometimes commenting on the AI God as though he
really believed in it.
I’ve been a lurker in the community since about 2004. At various
points I’d step away when the “cultishness and bullshit” became too
much. Main reason I’d come back is to read the interesting (though not
necessarily right) posts. I never connected with the community IRL
besides the two meetups I went to: one transhumanist and one Overcoming
Bias one about ten years ago.
It took a while but after a while I realize I just don’t like the
community—I don’t connect with it. For a blip the EA community seemed
better, and I guess it is, but I fundamentally don’t trust several or
the “high status” folks in that either.
As for r/ssc or the other SSC sub I’ve never cared to pay attention
to that. But plenty of stuff on there seems worthy of derision. And
these days at least that goes for Scott himself, I don’t really pay much
attention. And that goes for Scott Aaronson too though I only care to
disagree with him on cultural war stuff.
And, lastly, on the “is this sub bullying?” question, my short answer
is basically, no. And honestly, a better question is, does the
rationality community bully people? I’d say, basically yes. It has a
history of it. Until that’s acknowledged, they can shut the fuck up
before we have a discussion about SneerClub.
I’m a reader of SSC and LW. I’m actually going through “the sequences” right now. I subscribe to this sub because I want to know what the people who disagree with the people I’m reading have to say. I still love SSC and LW but this sub helps keep me from idolizing them too much and believing what they say without question.
[deleted]
I was a really big fan of HPMOR, Yudkowsky’s writing helped me break out of fundamentalist, YEC, Southern Baptist upbringing. It was around my senior year of high school/freshman year of college I first got into his writings.
In the years since then I’ve come to realize that the good stuff of Yudkowsky isn’t original and his original stuff isn’t good. His writings on cognitive biases and philosophy of science might serve as decent pop intro but other people have said it. Some of his stuff is outright wrong, or he intentionally choose perverse examples (torture vs dustspecks). HPMOR suffers from transitioning from a borderline crackfic comedy, to an Ender’s Game pastiche, to a serious and dark story.
Additionally, lesswrong and more recently Slate Star Codex attract fringe ideas like neoreactionaries and serves as a potential gateway drug to various iterations of fascism and libertarianism. With scc’s “principle of charity” often letting literal Nazis say their piece without sufficient objection, I find this subreddit an important counterweight to that.
Overall I still like HPMOR, and slate star codex does have interesting posts, but I also like seeing the dark side of the “rationalist” community called out and taken down a peg.
I’m here to nerd bash. I work in tech, and I frequently find that I’m alone in thinking that something’s wrong with the tech mentality (valuing form over content, glib utilon-maximizing, inability to empathize, being too stuck in the head, devaluing emotion, overconfidence in humanity’s ability to shape the world, etc.). This sub is the best I can do, unfortunately.
if these idiots didn’t have any influence on tech politics and ai research and a bunch of silicon valley billionaires didn’t buy into this crap I’d more than happily ignore them, but they do so I don’t see anything wrong with venting about it here
I can’t speak for everyone, but I think a good number of the people around here are somewhere along the sequence described here.
I’ve never been anything to do with the rationalist movement (I’m baffled that anyone takes Yudkowsky seriously), but I came across Scott’s writing a few years back and found him to be a thoughtful and insightful writer, who covered a broad range of topics which matched my interests.
This hasn’t really changed to be honest. I tend to poke my head into this subreddit when the /r/ssc commentariat gets to me. The SSC fanbase has, over time, skewed more and more towards an explicitly hard-right/scientific racist userbase, to the point now where explicitly facist/neo-nazi talking points are considered mainstream on the subreddit.
This has caused me a fair amount of soul-searching. As /u/Epistaxis put it in the link above, “Is it the people or the philosophy?”. It could be that the philosophy of of ‘charitability’ towards extreme views caused the community to fill with people holding those extreme views (the society has ended up consisting of approximately seven zillion witches, to steal Scott’s metaphor).
So, yeah. I still read SSC for the writing and the occational insight porn. But when the fanbase and the rationalist nonsense gets too much, it’s nice to come here and be around people not taking it seriously.
Probably not as odd as this post, though.
I find a lot of transhumanist stuff interesting and know some rats, which means I regularly get SSC and LessWrong shit shoved in my face by people who I generally think should know better. Since I don’t want to burn any bridges with people I know or get blocked from any blogs I like, I just hold my peace and then come here to let the annoyance fade.
[deleted]
Not me
My intro to rationalism was through Scott, whom I had a pretty high opinion of. I always thought Yudkowsky was an obvious crank, and was confused to find Scott sometimes commenting on the AI God as though he really believed in it.
I dated three rationalists. It’s nice to know there are people who share my pain.
I’ve been a lurker in the community since about 2004. At various points I’d step away when the “cultishness and bullshit” became too much. Main reason I’d come back is to read the interesting (though not necessarily right) posts. I never connected with the community IRL besides the two meetups I went to: one transhumanist and one Overcoming Bias one about ten years ago.
It took a while but after a while I realize I just don’t like the community—I don’t connect with it. For a blip the EA community seemed better, and I guess it is, but I fundamentally don’t trust several or the “high status” folks in that either.
As for r/ssc or the other SSC sub I’ve never cared to pay attention to that. But plenty of stuff on there seems worthy of derision. And these days at least that goes for Scott himself, I don’t really pay much attention. And that goes for Scott Aaronson too though I only care to disagree with him on cultural war stuff.
And, lastly, on the “is this sub bullying?” question, my short answer is basically, no. And honestly, a better question is, does the rationality community bully people? I’d say, basically yes. It has a history of it. Until that’s acknowledged, they can shut the fuck up before we have a discussion about SneerClub.
I always knew they were cranks and would just post on the sub asking for evidence/correcting people on obvious mistakes until I was banned.
Rules!!!