I think the statement “this needs to happen, and no one else is going to do it” is actually true
Can you point to some reasons why you believe that an authoritarian commune is a good idea (besides “let’s try and see what this button does”)?
in three separate fields I’ve found that my idiosyncratic ideas that everyone said contradicted the literature and wouldn’t work did, in fact, work, and produced excellent results
“Who needs literature, I’m smarter than all of them” is a worrisome attitude. By the way, did you check what the literature actually said? In my experience what “everyone says” literature claims is usually NOT what the literature really claims.
the whole screed is “let’s get down to the business of running experiments and gathering data,”
What is the price for the experiment and who will pay it?
Er … I think the whole post above is all about answering your first question? I’m confused, and feel somewhat strawmanned by the summary “let’s try it and see what this button does.” Because high-commitment, high-structure environments have a long, long history of being actually productive and useful and net-good for a lot of the people that go through them, and ought to be in the toolkit despite their known failure modes, and given the rationalist community’s strong predilections towards individualism, prioritizing flexibility and following short-term motivation, and not committing to things, it seemed naive to expect that a high-commitment, high-structure environment would come into existence via committee. Note that, while not super emphasized in the post above, a major assumption is “if I’m right, I should be able to largely put down the baton six months in when the thing is clearly working,” i.e. it’s more about the structure than the authoritarianism specifically (the authoritarianism being simply a necessary catalyst imo).
The price for the experiment is largely distributed across its members; it’s the money involved in housing and whatever difficulty people suffer from giving up a not-insignificant-but-overall-fairly-small fraction of their agency and self-determination. It’s roughly analogous, I think, to the price one pays to become a black belt, only condensed down into six months rather than spread across several years.
As far as “who needs literature, I’m smarter than all of them” being worrisome—I’m okay with people being worried. Those people are being actively encouraged to influence things here, and also the whole system is based on iteration, and also I object to the strawmanning again (I’ve said more than once that there’s some value to be had there, but am being summed up as rejecting it entirely), and also I am, in fact, smarter than a lot of them. Not all, but a lot, and it’s been proven before in multiple domains, and I’d be an idiot to ignore that.
I’m confused, and feel somewhat strawmanned by the summary “let’s try it and see what this button does.”
That wasn’t a summary of your position, that was a straw counterpoint for you to kick :-)
high-commitment, high-structure environments have a long, long history of being actually productive
Well… it’s complicated. Such environments are good for producing tools for a purpose. Cogs in a machine, maybe, or mass-produced minds from the same mold, or even cannon fodder if you’re unlucky—note that the military is the prototypical “high-commitment, high-structure” institution.
Having tools is certainly productive from the point of the view of the purpose. And it is true that some (maybe many) people feel that being a tool gives you a purposeful life, better than being pointlessly adrift. But, as I said, it’s complicated :-/
it’s more about the structure than the authoritarianism specifically
Structure needs to be enforced—otherwise everyone could easily set up the needed amount of structure in their life themselves. The point of the exercise is, basically, “I will organize your life for you” and that doesn’t work in the no-stick all-carrot setups.
I guess the concept I worry about is responsibility: if you will organize my life for me, you become responsible for it while my responsibility diminishes.
I am, in fact, smarter than a lot of them
That’s a good thing to be, but not necessarily to believe in :-D
In any case, I’m not saying you should do what the literature says, I’m saying you should know what the literature says, and not on the basis of hearsay either.
The price for the experiment is largely distributed across its members
Yes. The price (I’m mostly speaking about things other than money) is uncertain, in statistical terms it’s a random variable with a particular distribution. The question is how far the tail stretches: how bad is the worst-case scenario?
I think the point of the exercise is less “I will organize your life for you,” and more “we will reduce our ability to hide from one another, and therefore all be more likely to conform to our shared sense of that-which-is-endorsed.” The “I will organize” part is more “I will get us all together and turn on some of the relevant and hopefully-appropriate spotlights, and then moderate the discussion about which spotlights should turn back off.”
I have hopes that we can see the worst-case scenarios coming in time to avert them or eject, and that therefore the effective worst-case scenario is basically something like “I had a rough six months and have to find another room to rent again.”
Strong agreement with basically everything you say above.
Can you point to some reasons why you believe that an authoritarian commune is a good idea (besides “let’s try and see what this button does”)?
Because in real world there are many successful authoritarian organisations? More or less every company you heard about is de facto authoritarian inside (sure, there are exceptions, too).
Because “our kind” seems to have bias against coordination, and an authoritarian leadership is a possible way to solve it?
Because in real world there are many successful authoritarian organisations?
The issue isn’t so much “authoritarian” as it is the combination of “authoritarian” and “commune”.
Communes tend to be totalitarian and this one is explicitly set up as such (high-commitment, full-immersion, etc.) This makes it a dangerous environment—if people mention noticing the skulls, that’s because there are a LOT of skulls. “Authoritarian” means submission to the authority and in a totalitarian context that means total submission.
Authoritarian organizations like companies merely claim about 40 hours of your time per week plus obedience to a set of mostly external rules. And, of course, they pay you recognizing that their claim is a burden on you :-)
I understand where the impulse comes from: grassroots left is notoriously disorganized with the Occupy movement having been, perhaps, the peak of that—no leadership, no specific demands, lots of talking, zero achieved. But I would be a lot more comfortable with a “normal” goal-directed organization which focuses on external goals and not on molding the minds of its members. I’m very suspicious of mind-molding.
Besides, Duncan’s comments throughout the last week left me with grave doubts about his suitability to lead this kind of project. Low credence, of course, since I’m reacting merely to an internet persona and not to someone I know in real life, but my opinion of that persona took a marked turn to the worse.
an authoritarian leadership is a possible way to solve it?
Sure, it’s a possible way. I’m concerned with the cost / benefit ratio, though. Plus benevolent God Emperors are in short supply.
Not in the sense that the secret police will check your underwear drawer for forbidden literature, but in the sense that they require conforming in more encompassing and more personal ways than the usual institutions of the society (like a workplace or a college, etc.)
Note that things which are basically shared living arrangements on a smaller or larger scale are sometimes called communes even though they don’t requite active integration into the life of that mini-society—I don’t have those in mind.
And, of course, this totalitarianism is not a binary variable but an axis with, essentially, a solitary isolated individual at one end and a hive mind on another.
Can you point to some reasons why you believe that an authoritarian commune is a good idea (besides “let’s try and see what this button does”)?
“Who needs literature, I’m smarter than all of them” is a worrisome attitude. By the way, did you check what the literature actually said? In my experience what “everyone says” literature claims is usually NOT what the literature really claims.
What is the price for the experiment and who will pay it?
Er … I think the whole post above is all about answering your first question? I’m confused, and feel somewhat strawmanned by the summary “let’s try it and see what this button does.” Because high-commitment, high-structure environments have a long, long history of being actually productive and useful and net-good for a lot of the people that go through them, and ought to be in the toolkit despite their known failure modes, and given the rationalist community’s strong predilections towards individualism, prioritizing flexibility and following short-term motivation, and not committing to things, it seemed naive to expect that a high-commitment, high-structure environment would come into existence via committee. Note that, while not super emphasized in the post above, a major assumption is “if I’m right, I should be able to largely put down the baton six months in when the thing is clearly working,” i.e. it’s more about the structure than the authoritarianism specifically (the authoritarianism being simply a necessary catalyst imo).
The price for the experiment is largely distributed across its members; it’s the money involved in housing and whatever difficulty people suffer from giving up a not-insignificant-but-overall-fairly-small fraction of their agency and self-determination. It’s roughly analogous, I think, to the price one pays to become a black belt, only condensed down into six months rather than spread across several years.
As far as “who needs literature, I’m smarter than all of them” being worrisome—I’m okay with people being worried. Those people are being actively encouraged to influence things here, and also the whole system is based on iteration, and also I object to the strawmanning again (I’ve said more than once that there’s some value to be had there, but am being summed up as rejecting it entirely), and also I am, in fact, smarter than a lot of them. Not all, but a lot, and it’s been proven before in multiple domains, and I’d be an idiot to ignore that.
That wasn’t a summary of your position, that was a straw counterpoint for you to kick :-)
Well… it’s complicated. Such environments are good for producing tools for a purpose. Cogs in a machine, maybe, or mass-produced minds from the same mold, or even cannon fodder if you’re unlucky—note that the military is the prototypical “high-commitment, high-structure” institution.
Having tools is certainly productive from the point of the view of the purpose. And it is true that some (maybe many) people feel that being a tool gives you a purposeful life, better than being pointlessly adrift. But, as I said, it’s complicated :-/
Structure needs to be enforced—otherwise everyone could easily set up the needed amount of structure in their life themselves. The point of the exercise is, basically, “I will organize your life for you” and that doesn’t work in the no-stick all-carrot setups.
I guess the concept I worry about is responsibility: if you will organize my life for me, you become responsible for it while my responsibility diminishes.
That’s a good thing to be, but not necessarily to believe in :-D
In any case, I’m not saying you should do what the literature says, I’m saying you should know what the literature says, and not on the basis of hearsay either.
Yes. The price (I’m mostly speaking about things other than money) is uncertain, in statistical terms it’s a random variable with a particular distribution. The question is how far the tail stretches: how bad is the worst-case scenario?
Ah, gotcha. Thanks. =)
I think the point of the exercise is less “I will organize your life for you,” and more “we will reduce our ability to hide from one another, and therefore all be more likely to conform to our shared sense of that-which-is-endorsed.” The “I will organize” part is more “I will get us all together and turn on some of the relevant and hopefully-appropriate spotlights, and then moderate the discussion about which spotlights should turn back off.”
I have hopes that we can see the worst-case scenarios coming in time to avert them or eject, and that therefore the effective worst-case scenario is basically something like “I had a rough six months and have to find another room to rent again.”
Strong agreement with basically everything you say above.
Because in real world there are many successful authoritarian organisations? More or less every company you heard about is de facto authoritarian inside (sure, there are exceptions, too).
Because “our kind” seems to have bias against coordination, and an authoritarian leadership is a possible way to solve it?
Volunteers.
The issue isn’t so much “authoritarian” as it is the combination of “authoritarian” and “commune”.
Communes tend to be totalitarian and this one is explicitly set up as such (high-commitment, full-immersion, etc.) This makes it a dangerous environment—if people mention noticing the skulls, that’s because there are a LOT of skulls. “Authoritarian” means submission to the authority and in a totalitarian context that means total submission.
Authoritarian organizations like companies merely claim about 40 hours of your time per week plus obedience to a set of mostly external rules. And, of course, they pay you recognizing that their claim is a burden on you :-)
I understand where the impulse comes from: grassroots left is notoriously disorganized with the Occupy movement having been, perhaps, the peak of that—no leadership, no specific demands, lots of talking, zero achieved. But I would be a lot more comfortable with a “normal” goal-directed organization which focuses on external goals and not on molding the minds of its members. I’m very suspicious of mind-molding.
Besides, Duncan’s comments throughout the last week left me with grave doubts about his suitability to lead this kind of project. Low credence, of course, since I’m reacting merely to an internet persona and not to someone I know in real life, but my opinion of that persona took a marked turn to the worse.
Sure, it’s a possible way. I’m concerned with the cost / benefit ratio, though. Plus benevolent God Emperors are in short supply.
Cite? The kinds of communes my friends and acquaintances have lived in, haven’t seemed totalitarian at all.
Not in the sense that the secret police will check your underwear drawer for forbidden literature, but in the sense that they require conforming in more encompassing and more personal ways than the usual institutions of the society (like a workplace or a college, etc.)
Note that things which are basically shared living arrangements on a smaller or larger scale are sometimes called communes even though they don’t requite active integration into the life of that mini-society—I don’t have those in mind.
And, of course, this totalitarianism is not a binary variable but an axis with, essentially, a solitary isolated individual at one end and a hive mind on another.