imo, this is more sneer than cringe because the object of critique is the "I'm logical and rational and everyone else isn't" ideology demonstrated in this compass that's common amongst rationalists
in contrast, cringe culture tends to focus on more personal characteristics like social awkwardness
Wait, how the fuck is thinking about the meaning and accuracy of
speech different from thinking about the implications and motivations?
Most of the time you have to do both if you actually want to understand
something.
I would have said this was a bad sneer, but then I clicked through to the tweet and discovered that they had, in fact, responded to their own tweet with the link to that page. So, just accurate reporting.
I should include the link to the tweet. Considering this makes me look like I make fun of autistic people, and not just sneering at the bad source for the compass.
That Wikihow article is actually pretty good advice, although needlessly limited in their audience: not all autistic people are men, and not all autistic men are straight.
I have no idea how it relates to the bizarre compass, though.
What’s with these people and their obsession with being
dispassionate? Whether it’s HN guidelines or TheMotte or SSC it seems
there’s a contingent of people that absolutely loathes putting any
snark, humor or emotion in their posts. Hell Scott even posted a guide
on ‘how not to sound like an evil robot’ because it was getting out of
hand. What do you gain from writing in an utterly boring, contrived and
long-winded way?
I think a lot of them are generally just uncomfortable with sarcasm, irony, metaphor, etc. That’s fine as far as it goes — everyone has a different preference for humor and communication and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with preferring a more direct way.
Where they take it overboard is that they often seem to assume that getting rid of those things actually makes their arguments inherently more correct. They take a weird, vaguely Mr. Spock-like approach of thinking that they can just sprinkle in words like “logical”, “rational”, “prior”, “objective” etc. and those words alone reinforce their own opinions.
What’s funny about that is that I think that the whole rationalist movement was originally intended to stop people from using those types of short cuts to avoid critical thinking, and now those things are basically what most people see when they visit a rationalist community. A group of people who think that, because they *talk* like Vulcans or robots on the internet, that means that their thinking is somehow free of unexamined biases, prejudices, or mistakes.
The whole rationalist movement was intended to [make people believe Yudkowsky's AI opinions:](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/4PPE6D635iBcGPGRy/rationality-common-interest-of-many-causes) "it got to the point that after years of bogging down I threw up my hands and explicitly recursed on the job of creating rationalists."
You should not assume that Yudkowsky used the presented chains of reasoning to get from Bayes to living as an emulation running on the mind of AI God.
Or that he used chains of reasoning at all - rather than starting from his desired end state, of living forever reincarnated as a simulation, and then writing what he needed to to get there, then *presenting* it as chains of reasoning to convince others to adopt his ideas and become rationalists like himself.
Yudkowsky was desperate to convince people. This was the purpose. The aim was not an edifice nor analytic philosophy nerding: it was a polemic. A *manifesto*.
This strengthens the "monster at the end of the book" thesis of Neoreaction a Basilisk, btw - Roko didn't discover the monster at the end of a philosophy, but the monster at the end of an ideology.
(or, looking at the original Basilisk article and its promises of heaven and forebodings of hell, a theology.)
I get the feeling if anyone ever told this person a pun he would not
get it. After all imagine him processing the idea that words have more
than one meaning.
> I get the feeling if anyone ever told this person a pun he would not get it
He'd try to analyze it from first principles and then tell you you're illogical when he can't figure it out.
I know physicists who are socialist/communist, and I know a
mathematician SJW. Might want to rethink this theory. Humans have a wide
range of emotional styles. No one is dispassionate all the time.
If you unironically use the term “social justice warrior”, you’re not an intellectual. Sorry.
[deleted]
physicists are less literal and more emotional than mathematicians, apparently?
Everything can be neatly divided in two polar opposite positions.
Get ready for: you can divide these two positions in two
Is this CringeClub?
Political compass memes are supposed to be jokes, dammit
Wait, how the fuck is thinking about the meaning and accuracy of speech different from thinking about the implications and motivations? Most of the time you have to do both if you actually want to understand something.
How many different ways can you rephrase “reals>feels”? The world may never know.
Source : wikihow to get an girlfriend when you are autistic
Nevermind the fact that most famous scientists have been some form of leftist….
What’s with these people and their obsession with being dispassionate? Whether it’s HN guidelines or TheMotte or SSC it seems there’s a contingent of people that absolutely loathes putting any snark, humor or emotion in their posts. Hell Scott even posted a guide on ‘how not to sound like an evil robot’ because it was getting out of hand. What do you gain from writing in an utterly boring, contrived and long-winded way?
I get the feeling if anyone ever told this person a pun he would not get it. After all imagine him processing the idea that words have more than one meaning.
I know physicists who are socialist/communist, and I know a mathematician SJW. Might want to rethink this theory. Humans have a wide range of emotional styles. No one is dispassionate all the time.
Mature people strive to think well in both figurative and literal terms.
Hanson gets a lot of grief (but not nearly enough) because he is an insufferable shit stained cretin.
marxist-leninists being authoritarian right right next to nazis. lol