This doesn’t seem to be about the term rationalist at all. It seems to be about which rhetorical style different people prefer. Eliezer makes in a much more confident and more polarizing way then Scott.
In my experience Scott has an epistemic style where he assumes and seeks out contrary information, and Eliezer does not...he’s more into early cognitive closure. It’s not just tone, it’s method.
No, not really? I generally ignore anything Scott writes which could be described as ‘agreeing with Yud’—it’s his other work I find valuable, work I wouldn’t expect Yud to write in any style.
This doesn’t seem to be about the term rationalist at all. It seems to be about which rhetorical style different people prefer. Eliezer makes in a much more confident and more polarizing way then Scott.
In my experience Scott has an epistemic style where he assumes and seeks out contrary information, and Eliezer does not...he’s more into early cognitive closure. It’s not just tone, it’s method.
No, not really? I generally ignore anything Scott writes which could be described as ‘agreeing with Yud’—it’s his other work I find valuable, work I wouldn’t expect Yud to write in any style.