> Rationalists who detachedly and coolly model the external world That’s basically the straw Vulcan accusation. We build pillow forts.
I now see how the ‘who’ part of the sentence can come across as me saying that rationalists only detachedly and coolly modelling the external world. I do not think that is the case based on interacting with plenty of self-ascribed rationalists myself (including making a pillow fort and hanging out with them in it myself). I do think rationalists do this mental move a lot more than other people I know.
Instead, I meant this as an action rationalists choose to take more often. I just edited that sentence to ‘When rationalists detachedly and coolly model...’
I do think rationalists do this mental move a lot more than other people I know.
That’s a very different claim than the one in the OP. The one in the OP is about lack of diversity of mental moves and not just a claim about engaging in coolly modeling being a mental move that rationalists are capable of doing well and do frequently.
This seems to presume that a certain literal interpretation of that text is the only one that could be intended or interpreted. I don’t think this is worth discussing this further, so leaving it at that.
I now see how the ‘who’ part of the sentence can come across as me saying that rationalists only detachedly and coolly modelling the external world. I do not think that is the case based on interacting with plenty of self-ascribed rationalists myself (including making a pillow fort and hanging out with them in it myself). I do think rationalists do this mental move a lot more than other people I know.
Instead, I meant this as an action rationalists choose to take more often.
I just edited that sentence to ‘When rationalists detachedly and coolly model...’
That’s a very different claim than the one in the OP. The one in the OP is about lack of diversity of mental moves and not just a claim about engaging in coolly modeling being a mental move that rationalists are capable of doing well and do frequently.
This seems to presume that a certain literal interpretation of that text is the only one that could be intended or interpreted. I don’t think this is worth discussing this further, so leaving it at that.