posted on October 13, 2021 10:27 PM by
u/deluks917_
71
u/titotal49 pointsat 1634222055.000000
Geoff estimated that there were roughly 10 “super weapons” or “super
theories.” He said we already had 1–2, one being we had solved
philosophy (but not completely, he admitted — all he had left to do was
prove that time exists and maybe a few other details, was what I
remember him saying). The second super weapon/theory was that we had the
One True Theory of Psychology (this phrase was used regularly by many
Leverage members).
I’m glad they managed to fit some good old fashioned rationalism in
between the dark shit
> all he had left to do was prove that time exists and maybe a few other details
"I have discovered a truly marvelous solution of all of philosophy, which the margin of this cult pamphlet is too narrow to contain."
It's depressing how much she still praises their "openness" and epistemic rigor paragraphs before talking about how she was railroaded for doubts and every idea had to be endorsed by Dear Leader.
The whole “debugging” thing they mention sounds like a really weird
programming inspired version of the E-Meter. Like it sounds almost
identical to the way people would desperately try to audit themselves to
stop questioning Hubbard.
Recently LW discovered Dominic Cummings, and have been going over all his writings in awe of his 'rationalist perception of politics'
It's not just leverage, most of the rationalist community leans heavily towards libertarianism and neo-reactionarism, unfortunately. I am actually quite sympathetic to the whole lesswrong project, but the amount of truly terrible takes I see on policy by people with zero first-hand experience of political institutions is astounding.
Many folks have reached out to me privately w/ their own stories
about Leverage or Geoff. Some comments on facebook, twitter, Medium, and
LessWrong have shared or implied further stories (& concerns about
anonymity). So, here’s a place you can submit stories anonymously. It’ll
be handled & vetted by Aella, who I trust.
But surely not unexpected, right?
We’ve already had the whole post-rationalism game, where any and all combinations are supposedly valid as long as you have VC money
I don’t know if it’s scary rather than just an outgrowth of things we already knew
I was trying to figure out what “connection theory” is and happened
on this LW
critique. (Yudkowsky thinks Anders’ grand system fails to engage
with or improve upon existing literature and recommends he study up on
the Sequences.)
Here’s the tldr for CT:
CT asserts that every single person has certain fundamental desires
about the way they want the world to be (usually just a few, like social
acceptance and world peace), people always believe that their
fundamental desires will eventually be satisfied, and that people will
change their beliefs in completely rational ways except if such a change
would cause them to stop believing their fundamental beliefs will be
satisfied. CT also asserts that people will always act to best satisfy
their fundamental desires, according to their beliefs.
Unless I’m missing some subtle implication, I don’t get how that can
extend to a universal account of psychology and sociology, and I can’t
see any hint of the demonology described in the OP. The critique is from
2012; maybe Anders found Esoteric Twitter later on and thought egregores
would make a fun addition to the gumbo
"Yudkowsky thinks (...) fails to engage with or improve upon existing literature"
Excuse me while I take a few hours to scandalously guffaw at this statement.
> CT asserts that every single person has certain fundamental desires about the way they want the world to be (usually just a few, like social acceptance and world peace), people always believe that their fundamental desires will eventually be satisfied
I'm not even 2 sentence clauses in and finding issues here. Sure, I desire world peace and many other things, but I have absolutely zero belief that these desires will ever be satisfied - and I really doubt that I'm alone in that. There's a reason why the song is "You Can't Always Get What You Want" and not "You'll Definitely Get What You Want, Eventually, And All Of Your Actions Are Predicated On That Being True"
Since Geoff Anders' main case study at this stage was one G. Anders, I don't think I'm out of line reading CT as a formalization of his own psychology (or his perception thereof). Someone who believes all their thoughts and actions lead elegantly and inexorably to the satisfaction of their fundamental desires--I'd say that tracks with the post-rational messiah Curzi describes.
Someone allegedly managed to get through that whole article and then
asked in a comment, “Were the wages reasonable?” like that was the most
pressing concern raised.
So basically they were enacting some psychotic ghost in the shell
fanfic all trying to make themselves into brains in vats completely
divorced from and having no influence whatsoever on each other.
In other words Perfect Invincible Rational Übermensch Bayesian Agents
With Theories And Debugging Instead Of Senses, i.e. complete sociopath
weirdos who have as ultimate goal the metaphorical control of their own
heartbeat using meta critical thinking skills and epistemics and
crystals.
And they attempted this by trying to exorcise all normal effects
normal people have on each other, or what they called “mental
invasions”, “objects”, “demons”. Normal stuff that affect normal people
who live normal but complex lives together in a society where they talk
with each other, have shared histories and memories good or bad,
influence each other’s opinions, remember things other people have said,
think about things, have emotions about things, etc. To wit, indeed,
Evil Menacing Biasing Objects.
OK so right off the bat, I’m looking at the phrase “Unofficial NDA”
and gasping for breath
What the fuck is an “unofficial” NDA? An NDA is exclusively a legal
and official agreement not to disclose - usually meaning
disclose publicly - certain information defined within the terms of a
specific written contract. If your NDA isn’t official, it’s not an NDA,
it’s just you verbally promised or signed a piece of paper saying to not
talk about this or that piece of information.
> If your NDA isn’t official, it’s not an NDA, it’s just you verbally promised or signed a piece of paper saying to not talk about this or that piece of information.
I know thats not true (at least not in all states) which led me to the complete opposite conclusion- there is no such thing as an unofficial NDA because any agreement with the five requirements can be a valid NDA. You can have completely verbal NDAs as long as you have the required elements (consideration, terms, etc) and it's less than a year (due to statute of fraud). If you sign something that has all those elements and it doesn't specifically say that it is a nonvalid contract, then uhhh thats an official NDA in at least some states. It doesn't necessarily need an attorney to sign off on it.
There are special federal (and maybe state?) NDAs which have special rules like jailtime, but I don't think thats what he meant.
My point was more that if it *meets* the considerations then it counts as official *anyway*
From my read of the medium post I am extremely doubtful that the NDA as described would meet them
I’m not saying that you need an attorney to sign off, what I’m saying is that the structure described/implied here seems extremely informal and poorly designed
I’m re-reading this thread as prep for a talking point on a podcast later today, and I notice that I did explicitly say “written” contract, which was an error/brainfart
Just thought I’d mention that
Geoff still has a public-facing Twitter account. Also: “ Why is this
so important to me? I saw Geoff is moving in the world. He recently got
a small Progress Studies grant from a known Silicon Valley funder.” That
is to say, he will have millions of dollars of funding to soend
> Do people actually use the term "brain fog"?
Most people with a chronic condition or knows someone with one are probably familiar with that term, it's not exclusive to people interested in nootropics.
Definitely heard this before to refer to clinical symptoms, but I can understand being suspicious of rationalist terms you haven't heard, given how many stupid neologisms they have
I’m glad they managed to fit some good old fashioned rationalism in between the dark shit
<Kill Bill sirens.mp3>
About half way through; it’s like Pentacostals and Scientologists had a baby that was raised by Steve Jobs.
I’m so sorry for this person, and grateful that they got out.
PS: since they aren’t a religion, could the gov go after them for wage theft?
The whole “debugging” thing they mention sounds like a really weird programming inspired version of the E-Meter. Like it sounds almost identical to the way people would desperately try to audit themselves to stop questioning Hubbard.
All that sounds truly nasty to live through.
remember that Leverage is/was full of neoreactionaries too
Amazing how many things I recognized from growing up religious:
Though there were a few things that were different:
I hope the people who got out learn something and don’t fall into another cult.
Oh nonononono
holy shit thats terrifying
Scary stuff. Really weird to see sort of a combined rationalist, new age, christian demonoly, startup company incubator, wolrd domination cult.
But good she got out and is doing better. Hope this helps others see they are not alone and help them heal.
I was trying to figure out what “connection theory” is and happened on this LW critique. (Yudkowsky thinks Anders’ grand system fails to engage with or improve upon existing literature and recommends he study up on the Sequences.)
Here’s the tldr for CT:
Unless I’m missing some subtle implication, I don’t get how that can extend to a universal account of psychology and sociology, and I can’t see any hint of the demonology described in the OP. The critique is from 2012; maybe Anders found Esoteric Twitter later on and thought egregores would make a fun addition to the gumbo
Someone allegedly managed to get through that whole article and then asked in a comment, “Were the wages reasonable?” like that was the most pressing concern raised.
So basically they were enacting some psychotic ghost in the shell fanfic all trying to make themselves into brains in vats completely divorced from and having no influence whatsoever on each other.
In other words Perfect Invincible Rational Übermensch Bayesian Agents With Theories And Debugging Instead Of Senses, i.e. complete sociopath weirdos who have as ultimate goal the metaphorical control of their own heartbeat using meta critical thinking skills and epistemics and crystals.
And they attempted this by trying to exorcise all normal effects normal people have on each other, or what they called “mental invasions”, “objects”, “demons”. Normal stuff that affect normal people who live normal but complex lives together in a society where they talk with each other, have shared histories and memories good or bad, influence each other’s opinions, remember things other people have said, think about things, have emotions about things, etc. To wit, indeed, Evil Menacing Biasing Objects.
Woah
OK so right off the bat, I’m looking at the phrase “Unofficial NDA” and gasping for breath
What the fuck is an “unofficial” NDA? An NDA is exclusively a legal and official agreement not to disclose - usually meaning disclose publicly - certain information defined within the terms of a specific written contract. If your NDA isn’t official, it’s not an NDA, it’s just you verbally promised or signed a piece of paper saying to not talk about this or that piece of information.
Geoff still has a public-facing Twitter account. Also: “ Why is this so important to me? I saw Geoff is moving in the world. He recently got a small Progress Studies grant from a known Silicon Valley funder.” That is to say, he will have millions of dollars of funding to soend
BTW, lotta connections to other culty things: https://twitter.com/geoffanders/status/1436483711445319682
I’m sympathetic, and also glad the info is coming out, but i’m definitely concerned about this bit in the update:
These exposes reveal so much, but also show how much so many of these people just needed some good friends.
Do people actually use the term “brain fog”? Out in the wider world?
The only time I have seen it mentioned is in rationalist adjacent places. But maybe I am just old.
It always make me think of the not-actually-camp-cult-classic “Joe Versus the Volcano” and the diagnosis of a fatal “Brain Cloud”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M77TmgZ540E