I feel very resistant to the name change, and am cringing at the thought process that even brought it up. This feels like it’s getting dangerously close to mindkilling/politics territory, the first step in a schism.
“Since you are so concerned about the interactions of clothing with probability theory,” Ougi said, “it should not surprise you that you must wear a special hat to understand.”
When the novice attained the rank of grad student, he took the name Bouzo and would only discuss rationality while wearing a clown suit.
—Two Cult Koans
The Tribe is not the Movement is not the Goal is not the Brand is not the Way. Conflating these seems like a misstep. They are not the same. Which thing are we trying to name?
Branding is advertising is Dark Arts. When we resort to the practice of Dark Arts, we should do so with both eyes open: with a clear goal in mind and an awareness of the risks and costs.
Who gets to control the name? Who decides who is in or out? Names can be diluted or stolen. Remember what “Nanotechnology” used to mean? It used to be molecular assembers. Now it’s just fine powders. Remember what “the Singularity” used to mean? It used to be an AI FOOM, now it’s just Moore’s Law. I’m sure you could come up with more examples.
I have never liked the “rat” nickname. I’m not a filthy rodent. I’ve never heard the term “rationalish” before now.
I’ve always resisted using the term “rationalism”. I feel like “-ism” is a misstep into politics (and already the name of the 17th-century anti-empericists). We practice “epistemic rationality” and “instrumental rationality”, together, “rationality”, not “rationalism”.
So is your discomfort with having a name for the community/movement/field/whatever? With a particular process by which it’s determined? With a particular choice of name? With a sense of identity attached to the information and practice?
I object to others calling me names. (That I don’t approve of, yes.) Ad hominem is a Dark Art. Even if the name isn’t exactly an insult, it can still put you in a box you maybe shouldn’t be in. It can bias how others see you, or how you see yourself, once internalized. I want to keep my identity small, because identity is one of those things that can bias thinking in unhealthy ways.
I object to your name-calling being the price of entry to a tribe that I already feel that I belong to. Names are boundaries. They can exclude as well as include. If part of the tribe objects to the name, but part accepts it, that’s a schism. Schisms aren’t categorically bad, but I think this one would make the tribe weaker.
I object to having the same name for the community/movement/field/whatever. They should each have different names. You seem to think they’re all the same thing. They’re not.
I feel very resistant to the name change, and am cringing at the thought process that even brought it up. This feels like it’s getting dangerously close to mindkilling/politics territory, the first step in a schism.
The Tribe is not the Movement is not the Goal is not the Brand is not the Way. Conflating these seems like a misstep. They are not the same. Which thing are we trying to name?
Branding is advertising is Dark Arts. When we resort to the practice of Dark Arts, we should do so with both eyes open: with a clear goal in mind and an awareness of the risks and costs.
Who gets to control the name? Who decides who is in or out? Names can be diluted or stolen. Remember what “Nanotechnology” used to mean? It used to be molecular assembers. Now it’s just fine powders. Remember what “the Singularity” used to mean? It used to be an AI FOOM, now it’s just Moore’s Law. I’m sure you could come up with more examples.
In another comment here, you said:
So is your discomfort with having a name for the community/movement/field/whatever? With a particular process by which it’s determined? With a particular choice of name? With a sense of identity attached to the information and practice?
I object to others calling me names. (That I don’t approve of, yes.) Ad hominem is a Dark Art. Even if the name isn’t exactly an insult, it can still put you in a box you maybe shouldn’t be in. It can bias how others see you, or how you see yourself, once internalized. I want to keep my identity small, because identity is one of those things that can bias thinking in unhealthy ways.
I object to your name-calling being the price of entry to a tribe that I already feel that I belong to. Names are boundaries. They can exclude as well as include. If part of the tribe objects to the name, but part accepts it, that’s a schism. Schisms aren’t categorically bad, but I think this one would make the tribe weaker.
I object to having the same name for the community/movement/field/whatever. They should each have different names. You seem to think they’re all the same thing. They’re not.