r/SneerClub archives
newest
bestest
longest
What is this sub about? I got here by accident and I though LW and SSC was useful. (https://www.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/bmf13g/what_is_this_sub_about_i_got_here_by_accident_and/)
55

Pretty much the title. I am seeing horrible things from people related to LW, SSC and Yud. I thought that the union of rational, instrumental thoughts/analysis was very interesting when I first found these blogs. They even helped me with my biases. It reminded me of “Thinking: Fast and Slow” but applied to everything.

I did not see beefy stuff like economics and social policies and politics, I stuck myself to the blander, more abstract and strangely related topics. Might be because I always filtered dicey topics, but now I see the problems. I did not follow these blogs, I got to them accidentally too, but some of the content was appealing to me.

Help me overcome my bias.

edit: so, I’ve been looking through other “articles” on the blogs (as I didn’t steer away from the basic stuff) and I get why they get shitted on. It gets worse.

edit 2: oh my fucking shit, it’s really worse than I thought. I’m glad I found the sneerclub.

To be somewhat helpful, I think SSC/Rationalist types suffer from what I’ve heard colloquially called “Engineer’s disease”, basically the idea that because they’re smart/competant in one field then those skills will automatically transfer to other fields.

At best this leads a lot of discussions which have simply been unknowingly rehashed from other fields while inventing their own jargon. Essentially re-inventing the wheel, calling it the “rounded movement device”, and bragging about how smart they are when it does indeed roll.

At worst it leads to Rationalists wading into areas in which they have zero knowledge (say, political theory), misunderstanding simple terms, not understanding debates within the field, not understanding the history of these debates, etc etc basically tripping over their own shoelaces and defecating in their pants at every opportunity while still having the arrogance to write 10,000 word articles about it.

Both of these problems could be solved by having some basic humility and cracking open a 101-level textbook or (heaven forbid) reading widely on said issue before writing long essays about it.

Of course, there are many many more problems with the Rationalist community, but I think that’s one of the big problems that sits at the heart of the community and informs/intensifies the other problems they have.

> > > > > Both of these problems could be solved by having some basic humility and cracking open a 101-level textbook or (heaven forbid) reading widely on said issue before writing long essays about it. This leads to the N'th big problem of the rationalist community. A disdain for traditional learning. And thinking 101 classes are for simpletons. Which leads to college dropouts [starting projects like this](https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/bgfl4l/speedrunning_college_my_plan_to_get_a_bachelors). (Which this poster thinks is about learning, but it is actually about just getting enough information to pass tests).
I vaguely remember Scott Alexander saying something about how For Dummies books are great, 'cos they're basically 001/101 classes in *everything*. Which they are - not perfect, but *generally good*. Evidently this fell out of Rationalism's collective memory, though, because applying it would involve reading a book.
I was just reading about it, thanks! I actually *almost* got this Engineer Syndrome/Disease because I've wandered about capitalists realms of the internet and learned about the joys of a "flourishing child market", and the people on these lands had a hard-on for engineering that I could not understand. Actually, I could, but it was not me. What was more paradoxical is that they were shitting on Humanities whilst discussing them *all the bloody time*! They thought that since "math hard, humanities soft, we can discuss humanities because we now the hard". Of course, they didn't. Not even statistics, which they declared to know! Being a minority myself, I am fckin appalled at how little they care about identities, whilst preaching theirs! Every time the discussion about minorities would reach their domain, it always shifted towards "the free market does not discriminate" and how capitalism would actually help reduce prejudice because "everyone could work". From the same people that say "voluntary slavery is ok"! They actually think that, not considering the effects that social exclusion have on entire groups. As you kindly put: >At worst it leads to Rationalists wading into areas in which they have zero knowledge (say, political theory), misunderstanding simple terms, not understanding debates within the field, not understanding the history of these debates, etc etc basically tripping over their own shoelaces at every opportunity while still having the arrogance to write 10,000 word articles about it. Every day I see examples that break the rule of mainstream prejudiced opinions, specially because I don't live in the "first world", and I see "firstworlders" (?!) digging a damn rabbit hole to justify their biases, and I aggressively think "fucking hell, get out of your country, at least metaphorically! it's just part of *your* culture, not an engraved behaviour!" (specially regarding gender and race). __ >Basically re-inventing the wheel, calling it the "rounded movement device", and bragging about how smart they are when it does indeed roll. I'm gonna call chairs "seating devices". Funny, Sister Miriam Joseph (and actual professional on the matters of logic) put the problems of too much logic in her classic "The Trivium": if we're too specific, we don't communicate well concepts that are similar; if we're too general, we don't differentiate them. For instance, a chair is a bigger concept, but there are types of chairs. If we're too specific, no chair can be compared. If we are too general, no chair can be distinguished. The book has good, clear language and examples. It opened my teen, smarmy mind when I got it. Now I'm reading "The Cult of Bayes's Theorem" and that is eye-opening (besides the skepticism page, which is wonderful). >Both of these problems could be solved by having some basic humility and cracking open a 101-level textbook or (heaven forbid) reading widely on said issue before writing long essays about it. It seems like they think "pure logic" makes their argument ok. Empirical evidence is just as important. That's why current good philosophers are heavy users of data too. With context, of course (something that I see lacking in their essays). I'm gonna start "rational" essays to test my might on shit I don't know.
> What was more paradoxical is that they were shitting on Humanities whilst discussing them all the bloody time! They thought that since "math hard, humanities soft, we can discuss humanities because we now the hard". Of course, they didn't. Not even statistics, which they declared to know! Welcome. You're in exactly the right place on Reddit to find other people who have noticed this.
Apart for the failures already pointed out, there also is a secondary side which is a bit problematic with the rationalist community, it is way to friendly with the neoreactionaries and alt-right types. (Even if Yud said those people are not welcome in LW). Neoreaction a basilisk is the book you can read about the big names behind the neoreaction movement and how it is linked to the tech community. (The book isn't for everybody however, it can meander a bit).
Thanks for the info. That's exactly the difference between practise and reasoning. They think they're "just talking" or "just reasoning", but it is never like that. Welcoming (because that's what they do, if they don't punish, they're welcoming them) these people gives them ammunition to make all sorts of convolution in their reasoning to get passed as "rationality", which slowly infiltrates the community. This is human nature, you can't "reason out" this shit, that would be straight out anti-scientific! Frans de Waal has enlightening books on human nature that he *actually* studied and corroborated from decades of work. It's not just speculation and reasoning, it's evidence. The books are short but full of content. The best: they're very easy to read, they actually convey meaning. They create this realm of "discussion" in an mega ivory tower, which separates them from reality, and then complain when other "don't follow them". It's like we're speaking two languages. So they feel insecure about that (they never say that, they prefer the word "inadequate"; better if it's about a skill) and couple with feelings of superiority to feel better. Superior in their barren domains of the reason.
For all his faults, Yud specifically tends to be a lot less willing to put up with the alt-right than (for example) Scott. There was a Twitter thread recently where he tried to convince other Rationalists to refer to trans people by their preferred pronouns. Pretty low bar, I know, but better than nothing I guess...
On the trans front Scott is fairly pro isn’t he? There was a whole N thousand word article by him on the topic on SSC at some point.
> The Cult of Bayes's Theorem Good find. Anyways good luck buddy! I stumbled into this subreddit by pure accident as well and it helped explained the dissonance I felt from Yud's ideas and his application of it. While I'm grateful that he helped me start my "rationalist" journey I always felt hollow because I didn't want to give my spirituality. Currently trying to reconcile both world views. So good luck on your journey \^\_\^.
I got over the whole "engineer disease" in one of my first jobs, when I sat down with management and some of the marketing staff and realized, "These people know things I don't. I need to shut up and listen to them." I don't know exactly what I achieved that level of "nerd humility," where so many others cannot. Perhaps it is an aspect of character.
TL;DR domain knowledge is a thing
>At best this leads a lot of discussions which have simply been unknowingly rehashed from other fields while inventing their own jargon. Essentially re-inventing the wheel, calling it the "rounded movement device", and bragging about how smart they are when it does indeed roll. Or bragging about it when it's obviously a square wheel and doesn't roll at all.
> those skills will automatically transfer to other fields. https://xkcd.com/1570/ Link to the original.
whatever *did* happen to the word "ultracrepidarianism"
>To be somewhat helpful, I think SSC/Rationalist types suffer from what I've heard colloquially called "Engineer's disease", basically the idea that because they're smart/competant in one field then those skills will automatically transfer to other fields. What field are rationalists competent in, exactly? It sure isn't anything in STEM.
You're probably right. One of my big weaknesses is that I'm overly charitable.

imo part of the problem is that Yudkowsky isn’t as rational as he thinks he is. For god’s sake, he tried to get a Hugo for his fun-but-essentially-insipid Harry Potter fanfiction.

another part is that SSC likes to promote fringe theories. he’s linked to a guy who believes that male homosexuality is caused by a virus transmitted from man to man quite a few times (side note: I don’t think I’ve heard anyone explicitly make the jump to “gay pride is a virus” but if someone claimed that without also commenting on the catholic church they should be assumed to be arguing in bad faith.)

there’s another interesting note to be made in that Robin Hanson, Yudkowsky’s ideological brother, has made comments intimating that cuckoldry is worse than rape, and that it’s useful to determine levels of moral nuance for situations such as slavery or nazi germany

and of course you can’t forget the utter arrogance of some rationalist projects. Look up metamed. it was an attempt to use “rationality” to solve medicine. that sounds like a sneer but it’s also a fair description. it was also an utter failure.

if you think that LW, SSC, and Yud have useful ideas, you should look for the sources from which they took those ideas. there are several threads about that floating around. the common truism around here is that the good stuff isn’t original and the original stuff isn’t good. Kahneman’s Thinking Fast and Slow is recommended, I believe.

>he's linked to a guy who believes that male homosexuality is caused by a virus transmitted from man to man quite a few times Is that Gregory Cochran (of Harpending and Cochran infamy)? SSC likes to play footsie with the eugenics/HBD-sphere but usually not direct links in my experience.
Yep. He blocked me too
That would be him. I thought I saw an actual link to him somewhere on SSC, though maybe it was in a comments section.
>For god's sake, he tried to get a Hugo for his fun-but-essentially-insipid Harry Potter fanfiction. Wait what. There are so many GoT fanfics with *great* writing that perfectly mimics GRRMs style, how tf would that attempt of fanfic get a Hugo? I'm shocked. >another part is that SSC likes to promote fringe theories. he's linked to a guy who believes that male homosexuality is caused by a virus transmitted from man to man quite a few times (side note: I don't think I've heard anyone explicitly make the jump to "gay pride is a virus" but if someone claimed that without also commenting on the catholic church they should be assumed to be arguing in bad faith.) Now that I've been digging on the non-mainstream things, I see that their rhetoric is almost "these are words, how can words be bad? I'm just describing things." The rationalism is a veneer to their biases. >and of course you can't forget the utter arrogance of some rationalist projects. Look up metamed. it was an attempt to use "rationality" to solve medicine. that sounds like a sneer but it's also a fair description. it was also an utter failure. I searched it but did not find much when I did it. Now seeing again, it seems like a random exaggerated wacko pseudoscientific-woo-woo from a sitcom. I can't believe they actually pushed that product like this. __ >if you think that LW, SSC, and Yud have useful ideas, you should look for the sources from which they took those ideas. there are several threads about that floating around. the common truism around here is that the good stuff isn't original and the original stuff isn't good. Kahneman's Thinking Fast and Slow is recommended, I believe. Thanks for the advice. When I got into the books I was mesmerised. Still am, because I found new topics to obsess with. I need to be even more extra careful now. It was the same with Reddit: when I discovered, it was a new world; the communities, invigorating; the concept, amazing (because the site was very compartmentalised). Now it's a mess. Still nice if I don't go to the "metropolises" here and stick to my interests and smaller communities.
You can totally get a Hugo for a fanfic! If you write as well as [Neil Gaiman.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Study_in_Emerald)
Thanks for the encouragement ( ͡ᵔ ͜/// ͡ᵔ)
Fanfiction has also [won the Pulitzer prize](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_(novel\))!
**A Study in Emerald** "A Study in Emerald" is a short story written by British fantasy and graphic novel author Neil Gaiman. The story is a Sherlock Holmes pastiche transferred to the Cthulhu Mythos universe of horror writer H. P. Lovecraft. It won the 2004 Hugo Award for Best Short Story. The title is a reference to the Sherlock Holmes novel A Study in Scarlet. *** ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28
For those, like me, who did not know this story before, the Neil Gaiman website has this amazing looking pdf available (http://www.neilgaiman.com/mediafiles/exclusive/shortstories/emerald.pdf)
>Thanks for the advice. When I got into the books I was mesmerised. Still am, because I found new topics to obsess with. >I need to be even more extra careful now. It was the same with Reddit: when I discovered, it was a new world; the communities, invigorating; the concept, amazing (because the site was very compartmentalised). Now it's a mess. Still nice if I don't go to the "metropolises" here and stick to my interests and smaller communities. The key is not to get stuck in any one "epistemic community" (for lack of a better term) too much. Go back to the sources but also go out of your comfort zone. Also, look into intellectual history. All the shiny new toys they throw at you will look less shiny and new, but at least you won't be stuck rehashing 19th c. intellectual frameworks while calling yourself a futurist like the rationalists/transhumanists.
Thanks for the new topics, I'll have to check them out.

I did not follow these blogs, I got to them accidentally too, but some of the content was appealing to me.

I think the RationalWiki on LessWrong has it pretty right about the whole LW sphere: The good bits are not original and the original bits are not good.

So sure, some of the content appeals to you. But, mate, the bad runs the gamut from re-inventing weaker wheels in its own jargon (e.g. “steelmanning,” a less-clever-than-it-sounds version of the principle of charity) to rationalizing nonsense and bigotry.

> The good bits are not original I think the most worrying thing is that the good bits consist almost exhaustively of paying lipservice to good principles while never actually adopting them. It inculcates a kind of thinking that replaces reason with ways to signal that you identify as reasonable, and there's hardly anything one can do to befuddle someone more reliably than to get them to conflate those two things. That we then get a host of unrecognized kneejerk reactions masquerading as rationality--with all the goofy political stances we would expect as a result--is a natural symptom of giving up on being reasonable. This is a good example of where their lipservice has it right: training procedures of rationality is foundational. (If only they'd do it rather than just talking about it.)
so much so much so much one of the most frustrating things here is having to look at semi-frequent posts and comments complaining that the SneerClub ethos (mythos?) doesn't give that lip-service its due. But why should it? Anybody can see that the rationalist standard of discourse, when it gets going on one of its hobby horses, doesn't rise above the level of a suburban dinner party or the opinion pages of The Times plus arbitrary academic citations.
> a kind of thinking that replaces reason with ways to signal that you identify as reasonable In the end, it was always going to return to the original sneer: "rationalist" as a social identity based on a pretense to superior capacity for reason to the perceived irrationality of people who aren't, not unlike and perhaps in some cases an evolution of the ratheist mentality.
"charitably principle" is fucking case in point
Thanks for the advice too. I gotta stick to books from actual well-researched professionals who actually have evidence (still need to be careful and read reviews and make up my own mind; for instance, I once feel for Stev [Minusgreenr's](https://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog/2012/03/09/science-explains-why-the-color-pink-doesnt-exist/) slaving optimism).

when we do serious posts here we like to label them NSFW

Ok thanks for explaining. I was confused with the flair.
[deleted]
I'm liking it here.

Help me overcome my bias.

Sneer more

Shit, that wasn't intentional.

edit: so, I’ve been looking through other “articles” on the blogs (as I didn’t steer away from the basic stuff) and I get why they get shitted on. It gets worse.

edit 2: oh my fucking shit, it’s really worse than I thought. I’m glad I found the sneerclub.

you did a speedrun of this journey

Wow, that thread has everything that I noticed but dismissed by "reasoning it out". Every time I saw a horrible post about race or gender I rationalised: "well, it's a big community, so it is bound to have people like this sometimes" or "they're talking academically"--even when they had consensus on things that were plainly wrong and exclusive to American culture!. So, those communities are the summit of "talking hard to cover their point" and Ivory Tower analysis. Also, another thing that I haven't seen on that thread: pretty much a simple nihilistic philosophy could get down all their philosophising. Why? Because they value rationality. Value is a subjective attribution. You value what you think is valuable. Therefore, it's irrational. The end. All of it is construct. As the poster said, you can't use rationality to explain *why* it should be used--maybe that's why they've delved deep in meta analysis and "metarationality", whatever that means. I'm generalising here and I can be wrong with my logic, but it's basically "*my* instrument of processing thoughts is better than yours!". Zapffe's anchoring all the way deep. Maybe also Ligotti's "thinking/resisting horror": "*my* way of alleviating cosmic dread is better than yours, even if the ends are the same!".
It's a bit of a reoccurring cycle too, similar minded communities seem to somehow to run into the same problem, and rip along a similar fault line. Not that I'm very deep into philosophy, but foucault covers similar ground. There is a madness in believing that you're not a bit mad. (Also, welcome :) )
Gotta re-read Foucault. Not that I've gone deep into him (hehe wink wink). >(Also, welcome :) ) I'll definitely lurk here.

Welcome! You’re in good company.

The breaking point for me was when all but one of them feigned complete ignorance–and categorically denied the existence–of any modern societal conception of “ideal masculinity” whatsoever, and then had the gall to turn around and call me condescending for not assuming they actually knew all of my potential arguments and had already dismissed them as beneath consideration.

I knew they had biases before then, but I didn’t realize how far they would take them until that particular exchange. I’m glad you found your way out.

I purposely avoid these discussions everywhere I go in the interwebz, so I just dismissed then as niche every time. It sucks when you're not traditionally masc/feminine because people dismiss your whole points, opinions and whatever on that matter as just "eccentric" or "in the minority". The worse is when they justify that prejudice against you by using that. It sucks irl too, that's why you see non-conforming people with "big attitude", because they're kinda forced to prove themselves every time. I'm glad I was too lazy to try to become part of that community, lol. Not the first time I dodge a cannonball.
Heh, I need to get some of that "big attitude". My realization that I'm agender unfortunately coincided almost perfectly with getting my current job, so I was hesitant about doing anything too crazy during my probation period. Now that that's long past, I'm actually not at all worried about losing my job if I started presenting less masculine (strong union in a really progressive state), I'm just not sure how I would emotionally handle the weird looks from a workplace that's 90% old, conservative, straight, white men.
It's amazing what you've been through. I don't live in a horrible place so I have a bit more freedom to experiment without fearing getting beaten (that much). Maybe it's my bias, but I see that people who identify more with "inbetween" or "none at all" (like agenders) aren't proponents of that "attitude"--you generally see this in pre-op trans people, probably because they go through a lot. I think to handle the looks and all that shit is the hardest part for people who are different in any way. The best way is to find a circle that people respect you first, so you can have the social fortitude. By the way, what readings do you recommend me about your gender identity? I'm very curious about it because I'm a boy (´・ω・`) but I find these labels unnatural to me (totally my mind), so I'm pondering my fluidity.
I appreciate your enthusiasm and openness. I don't mean to overstate the severity of my situation; I would be pretty shocked if someone threatened me with physical harm just for pushing the boundaries of gender presentation. The consequences of me flirting with the wrong man, on the other hand... But in seriousness, I'm young, white, AMAB, and healthily middle class in coastal New England. I have it very easy in the grand scheme of things. I'm ashamed to say that I'm not super current on good reading in the gender discourse, though I would honestly be pleasantly surprised if anyone's written something that's both high-quality and reasonably comprehensive about being agender specifically. Personally, I started at the beginning with Judith Butler and *Gender Trouble*. Her position and theory have developed quite a bit since that first book (which is where the concept of "gender performativity" comes from in the first place), so if you do decide to read her work, make sure you engage with the full breadth of her work on the subject, not just the early installments.
My breaking point was unfortunately during MeToo, in a whole horrible thread about tearing down a woman's MeToo story, when they insisted that asking for consent constituted a fetish. I suddenly came to the realization that I was surrounded by RedPillers in all but name (who by any other name smell just as heinous).
Yikes. Explains your flair, though. 🙂

lotta folks hit the nail on the head

there are certainly some good/great articles on SSC (the actual website not the subreddit), and I still find it useful to read it, but the surrounding community is…yea just don’t

it’s often similar to Youtube comments in terms of HOT TAKES but just slathered in “rational” justifications

>there are certainly some good/great articles on SSC (the actual website not the subreddit), and I still find it useful to read it, but the surrounding community is...yea just don't This, so much this. I just didn't want to see it. >it's often similar to Youtube comments in terms of HOT TAKES but just slathered in "rational" justifications Convoluted language on purpose. "Brevity is the soul of wit" also applies to arguments.
a good amount of the convoluted language in the community is totally unnecessary at best, and intentionally obfuscating at worst (irony perhaps given how I worded it) it's amusing because I think some of the *best* SSC articles are ones written in a fairly accessible manner, and Scott has shown he can do that kudos to him because good lord most of the "rationalist" community that makes blog posts, or even really long Reddit posts, don't seem to be able to do that
Oh yeah, I thought that I liked that community but actually I liked SA's texts (that actually had substance and not just roundabouts on made-up terms). I remember feeling inferior for not "accessing" EY's "essays" because "I was not part of the community". Luckily, I'm too lazy for that so I wasn't contaminated. SA is the superior writer.

Get the fuck out, wrongthinker.

I'm being serious about my question. I'm really confused. I even misspelled thought in the title.
I have a zero tolerance policy on people not agreeing with me.
I agree with your disagreement.