Is this someone who has a parasocial relationship with Vassar, or a more direct relationship? I was under the impression that the idea that Michael Vassar supports this sort of thing was a malicious lie spread by rationalist leaders in order to purge the Vassarites from the community. That seems more like something someone in a parasocial relationship would mimic than like something a core Vassarite would do.
I have been very critical of cover ups in lesswrong. I’m not going to name names and maybe you don’t trust me. But I have observed this all directly. If you are let people toy with your brain while you are under the influence of psychedelics you should expect high odds of severe consequences. And your friends mental health might suffer as well.
I would highlight that the Vassarite’s official stance is that privacy is a collusion mechanism created to protect misdoers, and so they can’t consistently oppose you sharing what they know.
Is this someone who has a parasocial relationship with Vassar, or a more direct relationship? I was under the impression that the idea that Michael Vassar supports this sort of thing was a malicious lie spread by rationalist leaders in order to purge the Vassarites from the community.
I think “psychosis is underrated” and/or “psychosis is often the sign of a good kind of cognitive processing” are things I have heard from at least people very close to Michael (I think @jessicata made some arguments in this direction):
“Psychosis” doesn’t have to be a bad thing, even if it usually is in our society; it can be an exploration of perceptions and possibilities not before imagined, in a supportive environment that helps the subject to navigate reality in a new way; some of R.D. Liang’s work is relevant here, describing psychotic mental states as a result of ontological insecurity following from an internal division of the self at a previous time.
(To be clear, I don’t think “jessicata is in favor of psychosis” is at all a reasonable gloss here, but I do think there is an attitude towards things like psychosis that I disagree with that is common in the relevant circles)
the kind of thing I have heard from Vassar directly is that, in the Lacanian classification of people as psychotic/neurotic/perverted, there are some things to be said in favor of psychotics relative to others, namely, that they have access to the ‘imaginary’ realm that is coherent and scientific (I believe Lacan thinks science is imaginary/psychotic, as it is based on symmetries). however, Lacanian psychosis has the disadvantage that people can catastrophize about ways society is bad.
more specifically, Vassar says, Lacanian neurotics tend to deny oppressive power structures, psychotics tend to acknowledge them and catastrophize about them, and perverts tend to acknowledge and endorse them; under this schema, it seems things could be said in favor of and against all three types.
this raises the question of how much normal (non-expert) and psychiatric concepts of psychosis have to do with the Lacanian model which relates to factors like how much influence Lacan has had on psychiatry. I asked Vassar about this and he said that ‘delusions’ (a standard symptom of psychosis) can be a positive sign because when people form actual beliefs they tend to be wrong (this accords with, for example, Popperian philosophy of science, as specific theories are in general ‘wrong’ even if useful; see also, ‘all models are wrong, some models of useful’)
overall I think further specifying the degree to which anyone is ‘encouraging psychosis’, or the ethics of value judgments on psychosis, would in general require having a more specific definition/notion of psychosis, and the sort of ‘dramatic’ relation people in threads such as this have to psychosis (i.e. moral panics about it) is contra such specificity in definition, therefore, lacks requisite precision for well-informed judgments.
“Schizo” as an approving term, referring to strange, creative, nonconformist (and maybe but not necessarily clinically schizophrenic) is a much wider meme online. it’s even a semi-mainstream scientific theory that schizophrenia persists in the human population because mild/subclinical versions of the trait are adaptive, possibly because they make people more creative. And, of course, there’s a psychoanalytic/continental-philosophy tradition of calling lots of things psychosis very loosely, including good things. This isn’t one guy’s invention!
if you are literally worried about the risk of inducing hallucinations, i would be more cautious about things like overusing recreational drugs or not getting enough sleep, and less paranoid (lol) about talking to people or engaging with ideas.
It’s a term Scott Alexander coined a few years ago when he was saying Jessica Taylor was crazy for thinking people could have spooky mind powers that let them exert control over others, right before he said Michael has spooky mind powers that lets him exert control over others.
I don’t remember the context in detail, so I might be mistaken about Scott’s specific claims. But I currently think this is a misleading characterization.
Its conflating two distinct phenomena, namely non-mystical cult leader-like charisma / reality distortion fields, on the one hand, and metaphysical psychic powers, on the other, under the label “spooky mind powers”, to imply someone is reasoning in bad faith or at least inconsistently.
It’s totally consistent to claim that the first thing is happening, while also criticizing someone for believing that the second thing is happening. Indeed, this seems like a correct read of the situation to me, and therefore a natural way to interpret Scott’s claims.
Is this someone who has a parasocial relationship with Vassar, or a more direct relationship? I was under the impression that the idea that Michael Vassar supports this sort of thing was a malicious lie spread by rationalist leaders in order to purge the Vassarites from the community. That seems more like something someone in a parasocial relationship would mimic than like something a core Vassarite would do.
I would highlight that the Vassarite’s official stance is that privacy is a collusion mechanism created to protect misdoers, and so they can’t consistently oppose you sharing what they know.
I think “psychosis is underrated” and/or “psychosis is often the sign of a good kind of cognitive processing” are things I have heard from at least people very close to Michael (I think @jessicata made some arguments in this direction):
(To be clear, I don’t think “jessicata is in favor of psychosis” is at all a reasonable gloss here, but I do think there is an attitude towards things like psychosis that I disagree with that is common in the relevant circles)
the kind of thing I have heard from Vassar directly is that, in the Lacanian classification of people as psychotic/neurotic/perverted, there are some things to be said in favor of psychotics relative to others, namely, that they have access to the ‘imaginary’ realm that is coherent and scientific (I believe Lacan thinks science is imaginary/psychotic, as it is based on symmetries). however, Lacanian psychosis has the disadvantage that people can catastrophize about ways society is bad.
more specifically, Vassar says, Lacanian neurotics tend to deny oppressive power structures, psychotics tend to acknowledge them and catastrophize about them, and perverts tend to acknowledge and endorse them; under this schema, it seems things could be said in favor of and against all three types.
this raises the question of how much normal (non-expert) and psychiatric concepts of psychosis have to do with the Lacanian model which relates to factors like how much influence Lacan has had on psychiatry. I asked Vassar about this and he said that ‘delusions’ (a standard symptom of psychosis) can be a positive sign because when people form actual beliefs they tend to be wrong (this accords with, for example, Popperian philosophy of science, as specific theories are in general ‘wrong’ even if useful; see also, ‘all models are wrong, some models of useful’)
overall I think further specifying the degree to which anyone is ‘encouraging psychosis’, or the ethics of value judgments on psychosis, would in general require having a more specific definition/notion of psychosis, and the sort of ‘dramatic’ relation people in threads such as this have to psychosis (i.e. moral panics about it) is contra such specificity in definition, therefore, lacks requisite precision for well-informed judgments.
“Schizo” as an approving term, referring to strange, creative, nonconformist (and maybe but not necessarily clinically schizophrenic) is a much wider meme online. it’s even a semi-mainstream scientific theory that schizophrenia persists in the human population because mild/subclinical versions of the trait are adaptive, possibly because they make people more creative. And, of course, there’s a psychoanalytic/continental-philosophy tradition of calling lots of things psychosis very loosely, including good things. This isn’t one guy’s invention!
if you are literally worried about the risk of inducing hallucinations, i would be more cautious about things like overusing recreational drugs or not getting enough sleep, and less paranoid (lol) about talking to people or engaging with ideas.
It was historically a direct relationship, but afaik hasn’t been very close in years.
Edit: Also, if the “Vassarites” are the type of group with “official stances”, this is the first I’ve heard of it.
It’s a term Scott Alexander coined a few years ago when he was saying Jessica Taylor was crazy for thinking people could have spooky mind powers that let them exert control over others, right before he said Michael has spooky mind powers that lets him exert control over others.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/MnFqyPLqbiKL8nSR7/my-experience-at-and-around-miri-and-cfar-inspired-by-zoe
I don’t remember the context in detail, so I might be mistaken about Scott’s specific claims. But I currently think this is a misleading characterization.
Its conflating two distinct phenomena, namely non-mystical cult leader-like charisma / reality distortion fields, on the one hand, and metaphysical psychic powers, on the other, under the label “spooky mind powers”, to imply someone is reasoning in bad faith or at least inconsistently.
It’s totally consistent to claim that the first thing is happening, while also criticizing someone for believing that the second thing is happening. Indeed, this seems like a correct read of the situation to me, and therefore a natural way to interpret Scott’s claims.
...Yeah I’m well aware but probably useful context