Maybe it’s context dependent. If I am hanging around a lot of contrarians, I usually end up looking for a meta-contrarian position. If I’m hanging around a lot of meta-contrarians who I think aren’t as smart as me, and those meta-contrarians are being really smug and annoying, I become meta-meta-contrarian. I fondly remember a period of my life when I went to my college’s Objectivist club every week to argue vehemently against everything they said. I think that qualifies as meta-meta-contrarian if anything does.
What oil problem? > peak oil “we are doomed” > synthetic fuel created using nukes/humanity will find a way > likely to be a bumpy ride as alternatives take a while to ramp up in scale
Since he doesn’t present sophisticated meta-meta-arguments, to me it just seems like Scott’s beliefs are harder to shift from contrarian to meta-contrarian.
I don’t mean to toot my own meta (especially as metaness isn’t directly correlated with truth), but me with respect to cryonics. Carl Shulman? Michael Vassar? Most people who think about things? In general, people who think about any given topic more than the average LW poster are likely to be meta-LW-contrarian on that topic, for better or worse.
Are there also meta-meta-contrarians?
Maybe it’s context dependent. If I am hanging around a lot of contrarians, I usually end up looking for a meta-contrarian position. If I’m hanging around a lot of meta-contrarians who I think aren’t as smart as me, and those meta-contrarians are being really smug and annoying, I become meta-meta-contrarian. I fondly remember a period of my life when I went to my college’s Objectivist club every week to argue vehemently against everything they said. I think that qualifies as meta-meta-contrarian if anything does.
The game theory goes as deep as people are inclined to take it. In practice, I’m not sure.
I’m somewhat of one for peak oil.
What oil problem? > peak oil “we are doomed” > synthetic fuel created using nukes/humanity will find a way > likely to be a bumpy ride as alternatives take a while to ramp up in scale
I was wondering the same thing. Scott Aaronson and Cosma Shalizi come to mind.
Since he doesn’t present sophisticated meta-meta-arguments, to me it just seems like Scott’s beliefs are harder to shift from contrarian to meta-contrarian.
That sounds right, though maybe as you go more meta it just gets harder to distinguish between any level and the level two levels down.
I don’t mean to toot my own meta (especially as metaness isn’t directly correlated with truth), but me with respect to cryonics. Carl Shulman? Michael Vassar? Most people who think about things? In general, people who think about any given topic more than the average LW poster are likely to be meta-LW-contrarian on that topic, for better or worse.