Or, we could just use the same systems that less-rational people use to convince each other of things, but in a way that in in line with the rationalist ethos.
Since when does valuing rationality limit what other skills we can use?
Critic: “‘Other skills’ means skills of manipulation, rationalists readily abandon honesty in favour of power.”
I just want to clarify that this is not what I think, but I have seen comments of this kind made about Overcoming Bias (on other blogs), though never about Less Wrong. I have never written anything in reply. I was wondering how anyone here would respond to this kind social criticism. Would you even care enough to respond?
Anticipating critics and responses to them is largely a waste of time, if they are determined to be against you. Whatever you say will only be fodder for the next attack, and you are wasting precious time and energy being pinned down by their fire.
What we want is responses for people who are not the critics, but may have heard the critics’ arguments. That’s a considerably less-demanding audience.
Power and honesty (or, more accurately, Friendliness?) aren’t mutually exclusive, but yes, that’s a major issue. Maybe we need to spend more time talking about Friendliness here, even though it’s not exactly a rationalist topic?
I’m highly skeptical of the idea that rationalism isn’t a strategy for getting laid. It’s just a strategy that says the direct methods of using manipulation are worse than using rationality to get rich (or save the world, or something in between). This is because we recognize that most manipulators fall prey to their own shoddy reasoning and are ultimately handicapping themselves even if they have more success in the short term. Of course such rationalizing about short term vs long term success can be thought of as a natural response from high IQ nerds who find little success with women in day-to-day life. I still think this is true even if it turns out to be correct that long term planning pays off (as is usually the case, unless you get hit by a truck :)
Rationalism, as discussed on LW, is not particularly helpful for getting laid.
Perhaps what you mean is that our interest in rationalism is motivated by mental circuits which are indirectly oriented towards us getting laid. This is true, but this could also be said of peoples interest in sports, dance, conversation, literature and the arts, etc. Is there any reason to believe it is more true of rationalism?
Rationalism, as discussed on LW, is not particularly helpful for getting laid.
Well, if you filter out the epistemic stuff and focus on various instrumental-rationality bits like:
Willingness to accept unpleasant or unpopular ideas
Willingness to try things you see others succeeding with, even if they seem to be based on ideas that are absurd or impossibly wrong
Willingness to suspend disbelief while you are doing something, separating evaluating from doing
Observing reality to see what works, rather than imagining you are more (or less) successful than you actually are, by devising as-objective-as-practical test/success criteria in advance
Accepting others’ beliefs and worldviews at face value, without judging them “good” or “bad”
Then yeah, you will find some useful things here, though of course perhaps not nearly as useful things as studying some domain-specific materials on the topic. But the above ideas will serve you well in any domain that involves influencing human behavior, whether it’s your own behavior or someone else’s.
Or, we could just use the same systems that less-rational people use to convince each other of things, but in a way that in in line with the rationalist ethos.
Since when does valuing rationality limit what other skills we can use?
Critic: “‘Other skills’ means skills of manipulation, rationalists readily abandon honesty in favour of power.”
I just want to clarify that this is not what I think, but I have seen comments of this kind made about Overcoming Bias (on other blogs), though never about Less Wrong. I have never written anything in reply. I was wondering how anyone here would respond to this kind social criticism. Would you even care enough to respond?
Anticipating critics and responses to them is largely a waste of time, if they are determined to be against you. Whatever you say will only be fodder for the next attack, and you are wasting precious time and energy being pinned down by their fire.
What we want is responses for people who are not the critics, but may have heard the critics’ arguments. That’s a considerably less-demanding audience.
This is a key distinction which all rationalists trying to talk to the public should keep in mind in all places at all times.
Power and honesty (or, more accurately, Friendliness?) aren’t mutually exclusive, but yes, that’s a major issue. Maybe we need to spend more time talking about Friendliness here, even though it’s not exactly a rationalist topic?
I’m highly skeptical of the idea that rationalism isn’t a strategy for getting laid. It’s just a strategy that says the direct methods of using manipulation are worse than using rationality to get rich (or save the world, or something in between). This is because we recognize that most manipulators fall prey to their own shoddy reasoning and are ultimately handicapping themselves even if they have more success in the short term.
Of course such rationalizing about short term vs long term success can be thought of as a natural response from high IQ nerds who find little success with women in day-to-day life. I still think this is true even if it turns out to be correct that long term planning pays off (as is usually the case, unless you get hit by a truck :)
bring on the downvotes.
Rationalism, as discussed on LW, is not particularly helpful for getting laid.
Perhaps what you mean is that our interest in rationalism is motivated by mental circuits which are indirectly oriented towards us getting laid. This is true, but this could also be said of peoples interest in sports, dance, conversation, literature and the arts, etc. Is there any reason to believe it is more true of rationalism?
Well, if you filter out the epistemic stuff and focus on various instrumental-rationality bits like:
Willingness to accept unpleasant or unpopular ideas
Willingness to try things you see others succeeding with, even if they seem to be based on ideas that are absurd or impossibly wrong
Willingness to suspend disbelief while you are doing something, separating evaluating from doing
Observing reality to see what works, rather than imagining you are more (or less) successful than you actually are, by devising as-objective-as-practical test/success criteria in advance
Accepting others’ beliefs and worldviews at face value, without judging them “good” or “bad”
Then yeah, you will find some useful things here, though of course perhaps not nearly as useful things as studying some domain-specific materials on the topic. But the above ideas will serve you well in any domain that involves influencing human behavior, whether it’s your own behavior or someone else’s.