In a recent thread, a poster mentioned this blog post as an example of a Rationalist coming out with a story of their abuse at the hands of the Rationalist community.
This is the first time I’m reading it and the first piece of Rationalist writing I’ve read for quite some time. I’m following most of the jargon, but am getting a bit lost in parts.
So if some helpful soul could give me a hand, I’d appreciate it.
Net positive /net negative
I’m guessing this is referring to a utilitarian equation on whether a person is a positive or negative to society/the effort to construct Robot Singularity Jesus?
Zentraidon
Apart from sounding like a Gerry Anderson villain, what is this?
Person A seemed too risk-averse to me, especially for someone who believed in such a low current chance that this world would live on. The whole institution seemed like it was missing some “actually trying” thing. [Of the sort that revenants do.] Actually trying had been known and discussed in the past.
What is meant by “actually trying” in this context?
single good/double good
…apart from a misunderstanding of Orwell, what does this mean?
left/right tail outcomes
I’m guessing this is some kind of alt history parallel worlds thing?
Overall I’m left with the impression that this is a stream of consciousness journal from someone processing depression and emotional manipulation, using the tools of the cult they were indoctrinated in (Rationalism and pop culture references) to do so. Is that the takeaway I should have from this?
Your overall takeaway is correct. Based on her blog, I do not think Ziz is flourishing, and much of her analysis is questionable. Her “theoretical framework” is absurd even by rationalist standards. (The glossary is basically required reading.) But if what she says about Anna Salomon is true, then jesus fuck, that’s really bad. And I do think it’s true.
Correct, it’s utilitarian.
It’s from a video game. “Self-annihilation through technological progress”. The end of the world, if the bad machines take over, or if we choke on smog. Also something that can happen to individuals. Here “technology” is used very broadly to include mental techniques to change your thinking in some way.
A “revenant” is someone who has sacrificed everything to their noble cause, and is comfortable committing atrocities for the greater good. Ziz thinks this is to be desired. “Actually trying” would mean becoming a “revenant”.
I do not understand her goals well enough to know what she wants revenants to do, or what atrocities she could excuse. I don’t really care, either. It’s not important to the important parts of the essay.
Nothing to do with Orwell, unfortunately. Someone is “single good” if one of their two “cores” is good, “double good” if both of their “cores” are good. A “core” is a piece of Ziz’s manifestly silly psychology. It’s a decision-making capacity of the mind. If both your cores are good, you’re totally committed to goodness; if one of your cores is good, and the other is bad, you’re torn. It’s not worth thinking about.
Tail is here a statistical term, the edges of distribution. The most extreme cases.
Ziz is not representative of the rationalists. She has disowned them and they her. Ziz wants a purer rationalism. She had a very public protest at CFAR once, where she handed out these flyers.
I do not think she’s a fair target for sneerings, because in my nonprofessional opinion she is unbalanced and incapable of making the world worse. But she’s occasionally worth reading because she is happy to publicize comments, texts, and interviews with people the rationalists have rejected. (Often for good reason!) Thus she has an interesting conversation with Michael Vassar, an abuser and cult figure, about abuse in the rationalist community. If memory serves he speaks candidly about abusing people, other people abusing people, and the blind eye everybody turned to the whole thing.
those infohazard warnings, lol