In the cases where rationalists are communicating rationalist thought to outsiders, I agree that it’s important to get better at presenting those thoughts in ways that help outsiders understand and not leave some instinctive bad taste in their mouth.
This seems to rest on being able to understand outsiders’ perspectives better and trying to explain rationalist ideas starting from their end. IMO, we are short on field builders who can do that intent listening and interpretation work.
TBH, I also worry that this framing is a red herring. There are cases where
outsiders do really get some core parts of rationalist mindsets,
try to point out thinking traps there to rationalists in vague/provocative-sounding ways that don’t connect for rationalists.
rationalists jump to confident conclusions about what the outsiders meant, but fail to step outside of their own paradigms to interpret the key aspects those outsiders are trying to convey.
In the cases where rationalists are communicating rationalist thought to outsiders, I agree that it’s important to get better at presenting those thoughts in ways that help outsiders understand and not leave some instinctive bad taste in their mouth.
This seems to rest on being able to understand outsiders’ perspectives better and trying to explain rationalist ideas starting from their end. IMO, we are short on field builders who can do that intent listening and interpretation work.
TBH, I also worry that this framing is a red herring. There are cases where
outsiders do really get some core parts of rationalist mindsets,
try to point out thinking traps there to rationalists in vague/provocative-sounding ways that don’t connect for rationalists.
rationalists jump to confident conclusions about what the outsiders meant, but fail to step outside of their own paradigms to interpret the key aspects those outsiders are trying to convey.