I don’t love ranking people in terms of harmfulness but if you are going to do that instead of forming some more specific model then yeah I think there are very good reasons to hold this view. (Mostly because I think there’s little reason to worry at all unusually much about anyone else Vassar-associated, though there could possibly be things I’m not aware of.)
When you take psychedelics you are in an extremely vulnerable and credulous position. It is absolutely unsafe to take psychedelics in the presence of anyone who is going to confidently expound in the nature of truth and society. Michael Vassar, Jessica Taylor and other are extremely confident and aggressive about asserting their point of view. It is debatable how ok that is under normal circumstances. It is absolutely dangerous if someone is on psychedelics.
How do you know that Michael Vassar or Jessica Taylor have been aggressive about asserting their point of view in the presence of people who take psychedelics?
claims about Vassar aside, do I even have a reputation for being particularly disagreeable or overconfident, or doing so in the presence of people who have taken psychedelics? to my mind I am significantly less disagreeable and confident than high status rationalists such as Eliezer Yudkowsky and Nate Soares. I think my tendency with trips is to sometimes explore new hypotheses but have relatively low confidence as I’m more likely than usual to change my mind the next day. also, isn’t the ‘modest epistemology’ stuff a pretty thorough criticism of claims that people should not “confidently expound in the nature of truth and society” that has been widely accepted on LW?
as another consideration, I have somewhat of a reputation for being a helpful person for people going through mental health issues (such as psychosis) to talk to, e.g. I let someone with anxiety, paranoia, and benzo issues stay at my place for a bit, she was very thankful and so was her mom. I don’t think this is consistent with the reputation attributed to me re: effects on people in altered states of consciousness.
I honestly have no idea what you mean. I am not even sure why “(self) statements you hear while on psychedelics are just like normal statements” would be a counterpoint to someone being in a very credulous state. Normal statements can also be accepted credulously.
Perhaps you are right but the sense of self required is rare. Practical most people are empirically credulous on psychedellics.
Normal statements actually can’t be accepted credulously if you exercise your reason instead of choosing to believe everything you hear (edit, some people lack this capacity due to tragic psychological issues such as having an extremely weak sense of self, hence my reference to same); so too with statements heard on psychedelics, and it’s not even appreciably harder.
my view is that this particular vassarite is probably a fair amount more harmful than most, though i don’t actually know any others very closely
I don’t love ranking people in terms of harmfulness but if you are going to do that instead of forming some more specific model then yeah I think there are very good reasons to hold this view. (Mostly because I think there’s little reason to worry
at allunusually much about anyone else Vassar-associated, though there could possibly be things I’m not aware of.)When you take psychedelics you are in an extremely vulnerable and credulous position. It is absolutely unsafe to take psychedelics in the presence of anyone who is going to confidently expound in the nature of truth and society. Michael Vassar, Jessica Taylor and other are extremely confident and aggressive about asserting their point of view. It is debatable how ok that is under normal circumstances. It is absolutely dangerous if someone is on psychedelics.
Even a single trip can be quite damaging.
How do you know that Michael Vassar or Jessica Taylor have been aggressive about asserting their point of view in the presence of people who take psychedelics?
claims about Vassar aside, do I even have a reputation for being particularly disagreeable or overconfident, or doing so in the presence of people who have taken psychedelics? to my mind I am significantly less disagreeable and confident than high status rationalists such as Eliezer Yudkowsky and Nate Soares. I think my tendency with trips is to sometimes explore new hypotheses but have relatively low confidence as I’m more likely than usual to change my mind the next day. also, isn’t the ‘modest epistemology’ stuff a pretty thorough criticism of claims that people should not “confidently expound in the nature of truth and society” that has been widely accepted on LW?
as another consideration, I have somewhat of a reputation for being a helpful person for people going through mental health issues (such as psychosis) to talk to, e.g. I let someone with anxiety, paranoia, and benzo issues stay at my place for a bit, she was very thankful and so was her mom. I don’t think this is consistent with the reputation attributed to me re: effects on people in altered states of consciousness.
Yeah, I’m not meaning to actively suggest taking psychedelics with any of them.
Disagree, if you have a strong sense of self statements you hear while on psychedelics are just like normal statements.
I honestly have no idea what you mean. I am not even sure why “(self) statements you hear while on psychedelics are just like normal statements” would be a counterpoint to someone being in a very credulous state. Normal statements can also be accepted credulously.
Perhaps you are right but the sense of self required is rare. Practical most people are empirically credulous on psychedellics.
Normal statements actually can’t be accepted credulously if you exercise your reason instead of choosing to believe everything you hear (edit, some people lack this capacity due to tragic psychological issues such as having an extremely weak sense of self, hence my reference to same); so too with statements heard on psychedelics, and it’s not even appreciably harder.
Yeah I was initially going to dispute it and then I thought some more and realized it was probably correct.