I don’t know, and unfortunately the author is dead so we can’t ask him.
That said, “hero worship” could mean a number of different things, not all of which might be symptomatic of a dangerous cult. Could you expand on what you mean by it?
Eliezer Yudkowsky is one of the most accomplished, knowledgeable, and stimulating writers I’ve ever encountered, and if he ever were to visit my house, I’d buy a freezer large enough to accommodate his head, just in case he choked on my boiled chickpeas. That being said, I think elevating him to Chuck Norris status is decidedly harmful to the propagation of our cause. He himself has advocated that we don’t worship Einstein, because it obscures the fact that he was just as human as we are, and discourages others from striving to achieve his level. Likewise, EY is no superhero, no demigod, no mythic savior, and it won’t do to treat him like one. This is why, as much as I admire the guy’s awesomeness, I’m against the existence of the “EY Facts” thread. I can’t explain rationality to others and keep a straight face while thinking that the author I’m citing is the Way, the Truth and the Life, the last hope and salvation of humanity. Leave it to history books to sing his praises, but for the time being, it will be the opposite of helpful.
I think the “EY facts” goes the other way. That’s not hero worship, that’s making a joke of hero worship.
“Chuck Norris status” is the opposite of hero-worship. Is there anybody who seriously believes that Chuck Norris is actually possessed of superhuman powers? Heck, is there anybody who even seriously believes he’s a uniquely talented actor?
The great-writer, chickpeas-and-freezer part is truly my opinion.
Telling the world that EY is a great writer etc. is fine. Telling the world that you believe him to be great enough that you’d buy a freezer large enough to accommodate his head, in case he died in your house, is much worse than self-mockery such as the EY facts page.
No offense, but I suggest that you stop trying to improve the reputation of LW/MIRI. If MIRI wants to improve their reputation and public relations they should hire a professional outsider who is neurotypical (I am neither, so maybe I am wrong about the impression your opinion gives).
Upon rereading my post after a full night’s sleep, I can see the problems with how I expressed it. I agree that it may have come off as too fanboyish, and we’re seeing the line between fanboyism and idolatry at different positions. Continued argument will only dig me deeper.
I think elevating him to Chuck Norris status is decidedly harmful to the propagation of our cause.
Oh, dear. Elevating EY to Chuck Norris status is hilarious and, I would argue, shows “our cause” in good light.
Maybe elevating EY to the divinely-inspired-prophet (PBUH) status would be harmful, but I haven’t seen anyone do that.
I can’t explain rationality to others and keep a straight face
I don’t see any need to keep a straight face. I don’t know if I am typical, but I don’t respond well to things explained to me with a terribly serious expression (well, as long as they don’t involve things like staunching bleeding from open wounds and such).
Eliezer Yudkowsky is one of the most accomplished, knowledgeable, and stimulating writers I’ve ever encountered, and if he ever were to visit my house, I’d buy a freezer large enough to accommodate his head, just in case he choked on my boiled chickpeas. That being said, I think elevating him to Chuck Norris status is decidedly harmful to the propagation of our cause.
Just one data point here. The EY facts post was funny and not at all cultish. Whereas your first sentence (and to a lesser extent the whole comment) made me cringe.
I get he is. But Poe’s Law works both ways: there’s no self-parody that some clueless outsider won’t mistake for real lunacy.
That’s a good thing—I would much prefer that somebody that clueless just shake his head and continue on his merry way.
True, we don’t want to attract that particular person. But the misinformation he/she’s going to spread may discourage many potential desirables.
I’d say it’s worth it to have some humor and somewhat self-deprecating fun here.
It’s not only worth it, it is sorely needed. Taking yourself too seriously is a debilitating disease that can be fatal.
One of the signs of a cult is “grimness” — “disapproval concerning jokes about the group, its doctrines or its leader(s).”
How come that list doesn’t mention hero worship?
I don’t know, and unfortunately the author is dead so we can’t ask him.
That said, “hero worship” could mean a number of different things, not all of which might be symptomatic of a dangerous cult. Could you expand on what you mean by it?
Eliezer Yudkowsky is one of the most accomplished, knowledgeable, and stimulating writers I’ve ever encountered, and if he ever were to visit my house, I’d buy a freezer large enough to accommodate his head, just in case he choked on my boiled chickpeas. That being said, I think elevating him to Chuck Norris status is decidedly harmful to the propagation of our cause. He himself has advocated that we don’t worship Einstein, because it obscures the fact that he was just as human as we are, and discourages others from striving to achieve his level. Likewise, EY is no superhero, no demigod, no mythic savior, and it won’t do to treat him like one. This is why, as much as I admire the guy’s awesomeness, I’m against the existence of the “EY Facts” thread. I can’t explain rationality to others and keep a straight face while thinking that the author I’m citing is the Way, the Truth and the Life, the last hope and salvation of humanity. Leave it to history books to sing his praises, but for the time being, it will be the opposite of helpful.
I think the “EY facts” goes the other way. That’s not hero worship, that’s making a joke of hero worship.
“Chuck Norris status” is the opposite of hero-worship. Is there anybody who seriously believes that Chuck Norris is actually possessed of superhuman powers? Heck, is there anybody who even seriously believes he’s a uniquely talented actor?
I’m having difficulty parsing which parts of this comment are intended to be “within quotes” as an example of hero worship ….
The great-writer, chickpeas-and-freezer part is truly my opinion.
Telling the world that EY is a great writer etc. is fine. Telling the world that you believe him to be great enough that you’d buy a freezer large enough to accommodate his head, in case he died in your house, is much worse than self-mockery such as the EY facts page.
No offense, but I suggest that you stop trying to improve the reputation of LW/MIRI. If MIRI wants to improve their reputation and public relations they should hire a professional outsider who is neurotypical (I am neither, so maybe I am wrong about the impression your opinion gives).
Upon rereading my post after a full night’s sleep, I can see the problems with how I expressed it. I agree that it may have come off as too fanboyish, and we’re seeing the line between fanboyism and idolatry at different positions. Continued argument will only dig me deeper.
Oh, dear. Elevating EY to Chuck Norris status is hilarious and, I would argue, shows “our cause” in good light.
Maybe elevating EY to the divinely-inspired-prophet (PBUH) status would be harmful, but I haven’t seen anyone do that.
I don’t see any need to keep a straight face. I don’t know if I am typical, but I don’t respond well to things explained to me with a terribly serious expression (well, as long as they don’t involve things like staunching bleeding from open wounds and such).
Just one data point here. The EY facts post was funny and not at all cultish. Whereas your first sentence (and to a lesser extent the whole comment) made me cringe.