posted on August 18, 2021 06:48 AM by
u/JohnBierce
56
u/rnykal69 pointsat 1629272635.000000
She might speak about “updating” her opinions—a cheerful and
forward-looking locution, borrowed from the statistical practice of
“Bayesian updating,” which rationalists use to destigmatize the act of
admitting a mistake.
He’s so close to getting that the diction is just window dressing
So close.
IMHO, this is an intellectual fluff piece for the New Yorker, of the "I want to get paid for psychoanalyzing myself" sort. Which, don't get me wrong, I enjoy those, and a few are even pretty thought provoking- but I'd really like to think that a more deep-dive examination of the topic from the New Yorker wouldn't be so surficial and would have a bit of muckraking.
Of course, there's a reason I donate a lot more money to ProPublica every year than I spend on my New Yorker subscription. What I'd like to think about the world and what reality tends to be, are, well...
Basically, when these people talk about "updating their priors" and stuff like that, I'm very skeptical that they actually have a notebook (or several) somewhere full of comprehensive lists of probablities of hypotheticals, scrupulously updated with every relevant news story or experience. I think the Bayes talk is just a way to lend an air of objectivity to their opinions; what they call "updating towards", I would call "lends credence to" or "seems like evidence for" or "makes me think", etc. And imo, that quote has me "updating my priors" towards that perception.
It makes sense, Kling suggested, for rationality to be having a
breakout moment: “The barbarians sack the city, and the carriers of the
dying culture repair to their basements to write.”
This feels like the kind of “Rorschach statement” I see a lot from
Rationalists and it’s very weird for the New Yorker to just repeat it
uncritically and without discussion. Who are the “barbarians” in this
example and who are the “carriers of the dying culture”? By not stating
their specific views, the original author makes it very easy for anyone
with any set of views to nod sagely and say “yes, this author agrees
with me - the Other Side are the barbarians, and we are preserving this
dying culture, and we are acting rationally while they are not capable
of doing so”.
I just want to know how long it took this guy to think of a way to not analogize the rationals to the Catholic Church. And also what he thinks about Muslims.
Didn't catch that, good point!
Also, for a brief moment I thought you were talking about Rorschach the Watchmen character, which, uh, puts your comment in a slightly different light.
Oh goddammit this is the crossover I never knew I needed until now
The story ends with Myrna Manhattan leading Ignatius Rorschach off into the snow to an uncertain fate
Heard joke once: Man goes to doctor. Says he's depressed. Says life seems harsh and cruel. Says he feels all alone in a threatening world where what lies ahead is vague and uncertain. Doctor says, "Treatment is simple. Great thinker Pinker is in town tonight. Go and see him. That should pick you up." Man bursts into tears. Says, "But doctor...I am Pinker."
Good joke. Everybody laugh. Roll on snare drum. Curtains.
> Consider the example of a patient who has tested positive for testicular cancer
Fixed it for you.
(serious note, testicular cancer is bit of an underlooked at problem, if you are person with testicles do check them out from time to time, and don't sit on any weird discomfort).
Here's [John Allen Paulos writing about the "false positive paradox" in *Discover Magazine*](https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/counting-on-dyscalculia) in 1994. I remember reading about it in *[The Cartoon Guide to Statistics](http://www.larrygonick.com/titles/science/the-cartoon-guide-to-statistics/)* around the same time. Pinker and Galef are columbusing the Stats 101 curriculum, and the *New Yorker* is helping.
I’m a long-time reader of the New Yorker, but wow, this article, uh…
hmm. Fails to question some of the core assumptions of rationalism,
accepts Bayesian reasoning as a legitimate enterprise without
questioning it, and misses out on some hugely important parts of the
history of small-r rationalism. (If you’re going to talk about Weber,
maybe talk about some of rationalism’s empiricist and other foes from
that time?)
The article’s approach is somewhat orthogonal to this sub’s focus on
Less Wrong, admittedly- Galef and Pinker are the only usual suspects
mentioned, CFAR only gets mentioned once, robot gods and simulated
paradises aren’t mentioned at all. So I’ll extend them some forbearance-
I don’t think the author drifted into the truly crazy waters.
This article is bougie even for the New Yorker, which says a lot.
Still, at least they still have Elizabeth Kolbert and Masha Gessen.
Gave it a fair read. Takeaway: reads more like a psychological self
help manual than anything else. The advice seems to boil down to - when
facing real life problems make sure to consider all the relevant
information to reach a true-as-possible conclusion. Have I missed
something? Otherwise, that guidance attends every epistemological
approach I’m aware of. So what’s new.
He’s so close to getting that the diction is just window dressing
This feels like the kind of “Rorschach statement” I see a lot from Rationalists and it’s very weird for the New Yorker to just repeat it uncritically and without discussion. Who are the “barbarians” in this example and who are the “carriers of the dying culture”? By not stating their specific views, the original author makes it very easy for anyone with any set of views to nod sagely and say “yes, this author agrees with me - the Other Side are the barbarians, and we are preserving this dying culture, and we are acting rationally while they are not capable of doing so”.
i hate that i immediately know where this one is going
not that like, the example is bad, but that i’ve only encountered it by reading rationalists
Not really surprising, didn’t they do like a ten thousand word puff piece about Bostrom a while back?
I’m a long-time reader of the New Yorker, but wow, this article, uh… hmm. Fails to question some of the core assumptions of rationalism, accepts Bayesian reasoning as a legitimate enterprise without questioning it, and misses out on some hugely important parts of the history of small-r rationalism. (If you’re going to talk about Weber, maybe talk about some of rationalism’s empiricist and other foes from that time?)
The article’s approach is somewhat orthogonal to this sub’s focus on Less Wrong, admittedly- Galef and Pinker are the only usual suspects mentioned, CFAR only gets mentioned once, robot gods and simulated paradises aren’t mentioned at all. So I’ll extend them some forbearance- I don’t think the author drifted into the truly crazy waters.
This article is bougie even for the New Yorker, which says a lot. Still, at least they still have Elizabeth Kolbert and Masha Gessen.
Always. If you’re trying to be “metarational” always let someone else do the thinking.
wasnt there another one of these in different liberal organ the other week?
big sad
Gave it a fair read. Takeaway: reads more like a psychological self help manual than anything else. The advice seems to boil down to - when facing real life problems make sure to consider all the relevant information to reach a true-as-possible conclusion. Have I missed something? Otherwise, that guidance attends every epistemological approach I’m aware of. So what’s new.