I used to wish NRx could at least write concisely, but it doesn't improve them
still, "do you even lift" is slightly preferable to blackpilled basement dweller
Yeah that's fair. I've had moments like that in my life as well, but being aware of it and reflecting on it after the fact makes me really wonder how things could have been different. I too "got over it", but I have no idea why I did when others didn't.
It's difficult! I don't have a solution. But also I'm just here to sneer. Guess we gotta PRAX IT OUT BRO
The view held by neoreactionaries that humans are fundamentally broken and society was a mistake and can't survive for long, and every effort to improve it is pointless and doomed to fail. Oddly enough that seems to lead them to transhumanism and other technological fixes, because I guess no one is a true nihilist.
Considering this account is peddling 'dark truths', and trying to convince rationalists to give up on their epistemology I also dont think it is that funny.
It's pretty much the same thing every evangelical Christian goes through when they hit college and realize God might don't real.
Any major destabilization of one's sense of moral/social equilibrium is going to result in a period of flailing. It's not pretty, but most people come through it ok.
TL;DR : Nietzsche's madman eventually settles down.
To quote Marshall Rosenberg quoting Hannah Arendt:
> In her book *Eichmann in Jerusalem*, which documents the war crimes trial of Nazi officer Adolf Eichmann, Hannah Arendt quotes Eichmann saying that he and his fellow officers had their own name for the responsibility-denying language they used. They called it *Amtssprache*, loosely translated into English as “office talk” or “bureaucratese.” For example, if asked why they took a certain action, the response would be, “I had to.” If asked why they “had to,” the answer would be, “Superiors’ orders.” “Company policy.” “It was the law.”
From *Nonviolent Communication*, page 19 on “Denial of Responsibility”.
Edit: ... but now I see the original thread quote had a different context... but I’m going to leave this up anyway.
Edit2: Actually, no, I take that edit back. The original take that normal people learn how to say things that let’s them keep their job is hot garbage and exactly what Eichmann via Arendt via Rosenberg is talking about. If that’s how normal people are using language they need to cut it out and get some NVC before they “I was just following orders” themselves in to a real pickle.
a name whose qabbalistic implications we are still working out
Good now do the other big rationalists name … wait no don’t.
the rationalist can’t imagine you might deceive him.
Sure an cops are nice and never break the rules. If you believe this
I have some cryptocurrencies you can invest in.
Rationalists are naive in various ways, but this just makes them
sound like special innocent snowflakes which they certainly are not.
Rationalists are not newborn children.
E: I do wonder how long it will take for rationalists to convert
Scott to some sort of Christ like figure. ‘Even more racist lovecraft’
might have a point on the religious thing. Oh
No
Fortunately the little guy hops away in time that it singes its outer fur. Definitely not as horrible as some of the shit I saw as a bored suburban kid in the early 00's.
I’m sort of an ex-rationalist, but I know I still probably have some
rationalist-type views of the world, so I wanna ask something about
this:
“A normal person learns from social cues that certain topics are
forbidden, and that if you ask questions about them, you had better get
the right answer, which is not the one with the highest probability of
being true, but the one with the highest probability of keeping your
job.”
Isn’t that a bad thing? Like most people who got into the rationalist
community, I struggle with social cues and normal social interaction
sometimes, and I’m a programmer. Respecting taboos doesn’t come
naturally to me, and it feels like I genuinely don’t know what things
I’m “not allowed” to say because I could get in some sort of trouble
over them, whether it’s “cancelling” on Twitter or something as serious
as losing a job IRL. Shouldn’t we be allowed to ask “bad questions”
instead of shunning people for them, as long as they aren’t harmful
(like of course HBD is harmful/racist?)
That's a self-blackpilling neoreactionary, so taking his advice, ideas or assumptions on any matter whatsoever is probably not going to help you build a useful model of the world.
I think he's right, rationalist communities aren't equipped to interact with people acting in bad faith. He just fails to mention that *he* is the primary type of person they are unequipped to deal with.
One piece of advice: if you accidentally say something offensive that relates to some form of bigotry, such as racism, sexism, homophobia, etcetera, then *don't double down*. Don't dig in your heels. Don't "try to be right." Just apologize.
It's okay to back away from the conversation. Most people will "let it go."
Nerds love to argue. They love to dig in. However, when the subject of the discussion involves human dignity, then that nerdwank is bound to step on toes. Women don't like watching a bunch of men get into a tedious debate about their intelligence, so stay away from that topic.
Note, I'm not saying these topics should never be discusses. I'm saying this: *if you're the sort of person who has trouble understanding emotional boundaries*, then these topic are best avoided. Leave them to others.
> One piece of advice: if you accidentally say something offensive that relates to some form of bigotry, such as racism, sexism, homophobia, etcetera, then don't double down. Don't dig in your heels. Don't "try to be right." Just apologize.
And don't try to continue raising the question as an intellectual matter!
>And don't try to continue raising the question as an intellectual matter!
Exactly this. Nerdwank about Set Theory or if functional programming is good -- fine. Awesome nerdwank. Nerdwank about race, sexuality, and gender -- fuck no. Cut it out.
> Shouldn't we be allowed to ask "bad questions" instead of shunning people for them, as long as they aren't harmful
Sure, but because these social systems are in place, the people who are on the "bad" side are going to infiltrate whichever communities allow them to evangelize. The reason HBD spreads so easily in rationalist communities isn't just that rationalists are incapable of doing self-crit about their attitudes towards race, it's also because this is one of very few communities where discussing HBD is seen as even potentially valuable. HBD is transparently bad science, but there are folks with a vested interest in convincing people otherwise, so they'll all converge on the very few communities in which their views aren't unacceptable outright. Over time, rationalists will continue to uncritically believe that their communities are inherently intelligent and therefore right, and they'll notice that there are a ton of HBDers running around in the comment sections they frequent, so hey, maybe those HBDers are onto something.
On the other hand, we can't just allow completely open discussion and criticism in every forum. If I'm trying to explain a mathematical proof, another person with knowledge of the relevant field might offer relevant and useful criticisms. A malicious actor who doesn't care about reaching a correct proof could object that the proof is incorrect because 1+1 actually equals 3, and refuse to accept any justification to the contrary. In this way, actors with an agenda can basically derail any conversation they'd like if they're not shunned.
In an ideal world, you'd have structures in place so that uninformed people (here HBDers) have a place to ask questions and get answers, while informed people have a place to discuss more complex topics without HBDers derailing the conversation. Reaching this ideal state requires a bit more work than rationalists are willing to put in (for example, it requires that we point out that it a certain group of people believe something which is scientifically unviable, use that belief to sustain outmoded policy suggestions, and refuse to listen to evidence that contradicts their beliefs, those people are probably not worth engaging with.)
I still really love Scott's post where he draw the "pyramid of arguing with people online", and then drew a sphinx next to it saying that everyone just gets caught up in meta-debates because meta-debating is fun but entirely unproductive.
That's like, 110% of the rationalist community in a ~~nutshell~~ sphinx.
>HBD is transparently bad science, but there are folks with a vested interest in convincing people otherwise, so they'll all converge on the very few communities in which their views aren't unacceptable outright. Over time, rationalists will continue to uncritically believe that their communities are inherently intelligent and therefore right, and they'll notice that there are a ton of HBDers running around in the comment sections they frequent, so hey, maybe those HBDers are onto something.
Thank you, this was super helpful. Esp the part I quoted-- it got me to understand the issues with just letting everybody argue for whatever they want in a complete free-for-all. It will be overrun by the people who were kicked out of other places for being bigots, or idiots. Creating the ideal world you mention is (obviously) not easy but in the meantime I've found r/changemyview good for that kind of thing. I've only lurked there but I've found a few really great threads that helped me understand both sides of something I hadn't considered.
> Like most people who got into the rationalist community, I struggle with social cues and normal social interaction sometimes, and I'm a programmer. Respecting taboos doesn't come naturally to me, and it feels like I genuinely don't know what things I'm "not allowed" to say because I could get in some sort of trouble over them, whether it's "cancelling" on Twitter or something as serious as losing a job IRL.
One thing you could do is learn about the history of how and why anything is taboo, with empathy, among a people.
For Americans, an 'Irish Car Bomb' is a name of a cocktail but, in Ireland, it's a reference to carbombing during the Troubles, which is taboo. Why is it taboo? Because people they know - family, friends, neighbors - were *murdered* and maimed in the violence. I don't buy that it'd be a struggle for you, as a stand in for anyone, to imagine a bartender being reasonably put off by some customer ordering a drink by the name of the thing that killed their uncle. Not knowing is one thing, not caring is another. You don't need a special awareness to social cues, etc. - learn how to ask questions in ways that demonstrate your genuine ignorance and desire to learn, learn about the social history of the people you interact with, stop using "I'm a programmer" as an excuse.
> (like of course HBD is harmful/racist?)
Like learning the history of scientific racism and its use in justifying slavery, segregation, social and economic suppression.
Well the problem is that you're prioritizing finding things out or being "intellectual," over the many, many other motives most people have. In a workplace situation, that often means prioritizing face over what might be best for the company. E.g. don't ask a really hard question that might make the CEO look bad at an all-hands. You'll look like you're undermining them. And don't fall into the trap "well if everyone was more rational, everything would be better!" Just accept that people are what they are, and don't hate on them for it.
Arguments about epistemology, or about the meaning of life, these are
questions for sick men. Only sick men look for the meaning of life, or
for meaning in life, because true vitality justifies itself.
But he’s presenting an argument for… the meaning of life? (it’s
self-justified by vitality). I expect him to implode any second now.
Still, Lovecraft was the picture of virile, life-giving health, unconcerned with dark abstractions. Right up there with [DH Lawrence](https://imgur.com/a/QUbHAiq)
"Sons of Less wrong! Of The Codex! My brothers! I see in your eyes the same fear that would take the heart of me! A day may come when the courage of rationalism fails, when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship. But it is not this day. An hour of Females and shattered shields when the age of Men comes crashing down! But it is not this day! This day we fight! By all that you hold dear on this good Earth, I bid you stand! Men of the West!"
What I don’t get about rationalists is this mistakenly digital idea
that every thought a person has or every statement they utter has to
either be a justified true belief or a malicious lie.
About 98% of our beliefs are not either scientific truths or
intentional falsehoods; they are what is called “ordinary knowledge”
which is the fuzzy messy imaginative associative glob of belief that we
just pick up and roll with from our own observations and the variety of
messages we encounter (most of which are neither scientific truths or
intentional falsehoods but are also instead just ordinary
knowledge…)
I always liked “zontargs” myself, though I don’t know the
etymology.
On further reading: Yikes
Edit 2: where does zontarg come from? It stumped the goog, which only
found a subreddit with 2 posts. It claims zontarg is a loanword for
“short hair cat.”
Damn NRx-ers give off the creepiest vibes.
rats are adorable you monster
[deleted]
Good now do the other big rationalists name … wait no don’t.
Sure an cops are nice and never break the rules. If you believe this I have some cryptocurrencies you can invest in.
Rationalists are naive in various ways, but this just makes them sound like special innocent snowflakes which they certainly are not. Rationalists are not newborn children.
E: I do wonder how long it will take for rationalists to convert Scott to some sort of Christ like figure. ‘Even more racist lovecraft’ might have a point on the religious thing. Oh No
Which would imply that SneerClubbers are those two French tourists that singed a quokka with a lighter and an aerosol spray. Fuck that.
I’m sort of an ex-rationalist, but I know I still probably have some rationalist-type views of the world, so I wanna ask something about this:
“A normal person learns from social cues that certain topics are forbidden, and that if you ask questions about them, you had better get the right answer, which is not the one with the highest probability of being true, but the one with the highest probability of keeping your job.”
Isn’t that a bad thing? Like most people who got into the rationalist community, I struggle with social cues and normal social interaction sometimes, and I’m a programmer. Respecting taboos doesn’t come naturally to me, and it feels like I genuinely don’t know what things I’m “not allowed” to say because I could get in some sort of trouble over them, whether it’s “cancelling” on Twitter or something as serious as losing a job IRL. Shouldn’t we be allowed to ask “bad questions” instead of shunning people for them, as long as they aren’t harmful (like of course HBD is harmful/racist?)
But he’s presenting an argument for… the meaning of life? (it’s self-justified by vitality). I expect him to implode any second now.
Bit on the nose to name yourself after a notorious racist.
Heartbreaking:the-worst-person-you-know-just-made-a-great-point.jpg
Always with the LOTR references with these people.
What I don’t get about rationalists is this mistakenly digital idea that every thought a person has or every statement they utter has to either be a justified true belief or a malicious lie.
About 98% of our beliefs are not either scientific truths or intentional falsehoods; they are what is called “ordinary knowledge” which is the fuzzy messy imaginative associative glob of belief that we just pick up and roll with from our own observations and the variety of messages we encounter (most of which are neither scientific truths or intentional falsehoods but are also instead just ordinary knowledge…)
I’d take the rationalists over this dude tbh
Ohhhhhh-kay, this is definitely a very special kind of creep. (What does he think is the cure for mental illness in WOMEN? Do i even want to know?)
https://imgur.com/a/zkOJiRL
cute but I still prefer the metaphor of letting sunlight into a dark musty room/safespace
I always liked “zontargs” myself, though I don’t know the etymology.
On further reading: Yikes
Edit 2: where does zontarg come from? It stumped the goog, which only found a subreddit with 2 posts. It claims zontarg is a loanword for “short hair cat.”
Edit 4: op’s user name is fabulous
haha
I thought the “dark arts” were a thing, in rationalism?
With all the sock puppetry and trolling that goes on, there certainly seem to be at least a few capable liars among rationalists, at any rate.
PS, my reddit avatar is not a quokka.
You might enjoy the SSC discussion about this Yes_This_Is_God.