A lot of them are programmers. There was a comment on here from a while back that I liked which really laid out a possible connection between rationalism and programming. Basically, it said that programming is a job that's almost entirely about solving unambiguously posed problems using logic from first principles, usually with relatively little domain-specific knowledge required about the context of the problem. It's pretty accessible for a precocious newbie to play around with, and relatively little formal training is required; some of the best at it started as kids and are entirely self-taught. There may be disagreements between practitioners about the usefulness or elegance of different approaches, but the facts of what programs do are rarely in doubt. Problems are generally a matter of finding the single logical flaw or bug that prevents the code from working perfectly. When you have a problem you can't solve, or you want to brush up your skills in a new area, you generally do it by reading blogs and comment threads written by anonymous (frequently) weirdos. You don't have to worry about their credibility because you can test everything on your own. Often the weirder the weirdo, the better their code will be (due to more dedication to programming, selection effects, the culture or whatever). Your work can affect millions of people as easily as it affects a few, which is heady. Programming is so useful that you can be paid handsomely for it as long as you demonstrate some competence, even if you're self-taught with no formal credentials. This makes programming an attractive and exciting job, but also means it basically teaches and venerates intellectual habits that would make you a crackpot in any other domain. There's also my theory that a lot of the rationalist types want to be rich and (consciously or subconsciously) valorize wealthy VCs as models for emulation. As such, they place value not on deep expertise, but on being able to quickly learn just enough about topics to gamble on them, and make a net profit over all the gambles.

Well the prominent figures in the movement are mostly like Yudkowsky, and as far as representation among the follower goes it's not clear whether STEM is over or under represented considering the location (bay area) and the topic (futurist nerd shit).

Let's assume you are in good faith, what do you exactly want? A review of every 10k words essays Siskind or Yud wrote where I point out every single unsupported statement, every unwarranted generalization, any misunderstanding of the conceptual tools they use and every semantic three-card trick they try to pull on the reader? Because that would incredibly long and frankly boring. Why instead don't you tell me why you think their work (or a particular subset of their work of your choice) could live up on academic standards and we discuss that?

[deleted]

And don't forget the occasional geneticist! Yikes

in my native language liberal arts is synonymous with humanities and that's what i meant🤷🏻‍♀️

The fuck are you talking about, if you’re not into Hume you’re a dumbass?