In my field, a functional pearl is a simple, clear, and aesthetically pleasing example which cleanly illustrates a principle of functional programming.
Rationalists are constitutively incapable of avoiding self-parody, which ensures the endless production of “rationalist pearls”: simple examples of rationalists hilariously fucking up their own ideology. “Satire and controversial issues don’t mix all that well” is a favorite example of mine, but let’s check out a more current pearl, so current that it’s actually at the top of /r/slatestarcodex as I post, right here.
The protagonist for our story has noticed that male friendships described in historical documents seem much more intimate that those common today (notice, btw, that the latter statement is implicitly restricted to Western white cultures - this is not the case across large portions of the world). So /u/penpractice goes to a great place: /r/AskHistorians, asks his question, and receives a detailed answer from a flaired user (which, in /r/AskHistorians, typically implies some significant and relevant academic credentials). The respondent even follows up with several academic sources for those who might be further interested. I recommend reading the nuanced response.
Were our story to end here, ’twould be an uplifting tale of curiosity
and learning. But our hero is tempted by the whispers of the dark side,
and comes to /r/slatestarcodex with the following request:
> I’d love a discussion on this, but /r/AskHistorians is a bit too
formal for a discussion, as they only want accredited historians
answering stuff and there aren’t many of them wasting time on Reddit.
Figure I’d post it here, if anyone has some insight!
Is anybody there likely to offer some insight? Is having your complex historical question answered by an accredited historian a bad thing? Is it possible that some knowledge may require the use of an authoritative source, and not be derivable a priori from the mind of even an enlightened mental ninja-warrior?
We may never know. Thanks to the wonderful residents of /r/slatestarcodex, we do know one thing: that the increasing acceptance of homosexuality is certainly at fault. 30+ comments support this theory, offering as evidence a single blog post which itself cites no supporting evidence and recommends to “ban deviancy in public”. Has the problem been clearly defined? Has it been substantively linked to homosexuality in any way? Have confounding factors been considered? Again, we may never know. Certainly nothing of value was done where any inquisitive eyes might learn something.
What have the residents of /r/slatestarcodex learned? Nothing, as the answer to the question sprang fully formed from their priors, and no additional evidence or updates were needed. What has /u/penpractice learned? Hopefully, a cautionary tale on the unreliability of just-so stories about complex social issues which happen to align perfectly with the pre-existing opinions of those relating them - but this depends on his ability to resist the temptations of the dark side. What have we here learned? Well, if you’ve been here long, probably nothing - it seems the rationalists rarely have anything new to teach us. But it is fun to laugh.
penpractice: “So why can’t men be as close as they used to?”
r/AskHistorians: *outlines complex and nuanced reasons in well-sourced post*
r/SSC: “Nah it’s teh gay virus!”
Please write more Pearls, I require them for my continued existence. 10/10.
Moderately disappointed to discover this thread isn’t about rationalist Steven Universe fanfic.
It’s amazing that this rationalist didn’t like the answer. sunagainstgold is one of the best users in /r/AskHistorians. I always knew that these STEMLords had an allergy to humanities scholars, but I’ve never seen such a clear example before. Rejecting sunagainstgold’s answer to ask /r/ssc is just like starting MetaMed–“oh, I’m so clever, so much more clever than these domain experts because I like RIGOR.”
I love the guy saying homosexuality didn’t exist prior to the 19th century and the guy complaining about historians examining concepts such as wealth or intimacy to look at what those meant to different people in their own day. Too academic for me, says the dude posting on a forum supposedly devoted to rational thought! Runner up for most clueless post is the dude who suggests that we maybe ought to examine whether the letters of elites represent behavior for other people/classes. Congratulations, rationalism, you’ve reinvented source criticism, a mere century or two after it became an important part of the historical method! No one appears to have actually addressed the answer given on askhistorians, presumably because it contains scary words like gender.
Supplementary diversity of opinion incoming:
Because, of course, Edwardian fathers were notorious for their effusively affectionate attitude to parenthood.
[removed]
r/ssc isn’t reactionary, if anything it’s left wing, especially outside of the Culture War thread!
Also, homosexuality is a signalling issue and is correctly opposed by traditional societies.
I guess I take it as gentile (r)etiquette, but let’s not ping people with their user names when we link to places.
Otherwise, spot on. Gays did not exist before sexological classification and pathologization. I’m not sure why SSC is even getting worked up over this point seeing as they are a bunch of straight virgin nerds.
Wait, I thought the official incel position was that gay guys were real and great, because that means there are less men to, uh, ‘compete’, but that so called lesbians are just using their supposed ‘orientation’ as cover for politely declining nice guys tm and that a real alpha tm would ignore their stated orientation
(this was my experience in the bay, too)
Did anyone else read automatically mentally read this in David Attenborough’s voice?
[deleted]