I have sometimes said that personal loyalty is one of the most important virtues. Certainly it has always seemed to me to be a neglected virtue, in rationalist circles.
I’m surprised to here that sentiment from you when you also speak against the value of rationalists doing community things together.
Doing rituals together is a way to create the emotional bonds that in turn create mutual loyality. That’s why fraternities have their initiation rituals.
I have sometimes said that personal loyalty is one of the most important virtues. Certainly it has always seemed to me to be a neglected virtue, in rationalist circles.
I’m surprised to here that sentiment from you when you also speak against the value of rationalists doing community things together.
These sentiments are not only not opposed—they are, in fact, inextricably linked. That this seems surprising to you is… unfortunate; it means the inferential distance between us is great. I am at a loss for how to bridge it, truth be told. Perhaps someone else can try.
Doing rituals together is a way to create the emotional bonds that in turn create mutual loyality. That’s why fraternities have their initiation rituals.
You cannot hack your way to friendship and loyalty—and (I assert) bad things happen if you try. That you can (sort of) hack your way to a sense of friendship and loyalty is not the same thing (but may prevent you from seeing the fact of the preceding sentence).
I am unsure what you’re asking. What is “this sort of thing”? Do you mean “friendship and loyalty”? I don’t know that I have much to tell you, on that subject, that hasn’t been said by many people, more eloquent and wise than I am. (How much has been written about friendship, and about loyalty? This stuff was old hat to Aristotle…)
These are individual virtues. They are “done”—well or poorly—by individuals. I do not think there is any good way to impose them from above. (You can, perhaps, encourage a social environment where such virtues can more readily be exercised, and avoid encouraging a social environment where they’re stifled. But the question of how to do this is… complex; beyond the scope of this discussion, I think, and in any case not something I have anything approaching a solid grasp on.)
You can, perhaps, encourage a social environment where such virtues can more readily be exercised, and avoid encouraging a social environment where they’re stifled.
I thought that’s what you were talking about: that some ways of organizing people fight or delegitimize personal loyalty considerations, while others work with it or at least figure out how not to actively destroy it. It seemed to me like you were saying that the way Rationalists try to do community tends to be corrosive to this other thing you think is important.
That’s… at once both close to what I’m saying, and also not really what I’m saying at all.
I underestimated the inferential distance here, it seems; it’s surprising to me, how much what I am saying is not obvious. (If anything, I expected the reaction to be more like “ok, yes, duh, that is true and boring and everyone knows this”.)
I may try to write something longer on this topic, but I fear it would have to be much longer; the matters that this question touches upon range wide and deep…
I don’t know that I have much to tell you, on that subject, that hasn’t been said by many people, more eloquent and wise than I am
Sure, but as such, there’s a lot of different approaches to how to do them well (some mutually exclusive), so pinpointing which particular things you’re talking about seems useful.
(I do think I have an idea of what you mean, and might agree, but the thing you’re talking about is probably about as clear to me Ben’s “fight trolls” comment was to you)
Seems fine to table it for now if it doesn’t seem relevant though.
Do you think that existing societal organisations like fraternities aren’t build with the goal of facilitating friendship and loyalty? Do you think they fail at that and produce bad results?
I’m surprised to here that sentiment from you when you also speak against the value of rationalists doing community things together.
Doing rituals together is a way to create the emotional bonds that in turn create mutual loyality. That’s why fraternities have their initiation rituals.
These sentiments are not only not opposed—they are, in fact, inextricably linked. That this seems surprising to you is… unfortunate; it means the inferential distance between us is great. I am at a loss for how to bridge it, truth be told. Perhaps someone else can try.
You cannot hack your way to friendship and loyalty—and (I assert) bad things happen if you try. That you can (sort of) hack your way to a sense of friendship and loyalty is not the same thing (but may prevent you from seeing the fact of the preceding sentence).
What does it look like for this sort of thing to be done well? Can you point to examples?
I am unsure what you’re asking. What is “this sort of thing”? Do you mean “friendship and loyalty”? I don’t know that I have much to tell you, on that subject, that hasn’t been said by many people, more eloquent and wise than I am. (How much has been written about friendship, and about loyalty? This stuff was old hat to Aristotle…)
These are individual virtues. They are “done”—well or poorly—by individuals. I do not think there is any good way to impose them from above. (You can, perhaps, encourage a social environment where such virtues can more readily be exercised, and avoid encouraging a social environment where they’re stifled. But the question of how to do this is… complex; beyond the scope of this discussion, I think, and in any case not something I have anything approaching a solid grasp on.)
I thought that’s what you were talking about: that some ways of organizing people fight or delegitimize personal loyalty considerations, while others work with it or at least figure out how not to actively destroy it. It seemed to me like you were saying that the way Rationalists try to do community tends to be corrosive to this other thing you think is important.
That’s… at once both close to what I’m saying, and also not really what I’m saying at all.
I underestimated the inferential distance here, it seems; it’s surprising to me, how much what I am saying is not obvious. (If anything, I expected the reaction to be more like “ok, yes, duh, that is true and boring and everyone knows this”.)
I may try to write something longer on this topic, but I fear it would have to be much longer; the matters that this question touches upon range wide and deep…
I hope you do find the time to write about this in depth.
Seconded. Would like to hear the in-depth version.
Sure, but as such, there’s a lot of different approaches to how to do them well (some mutually exclusive), so pinpointing which particular things you’re talking about seems useful.
(I do think I have an idea of what you mean, and might agree, but the thing you’re talking about is probably about as clear to me Ben’s “fight trolls” comment was to you)
Seems fine to table it for now if it doesn’t seem relevant though.
Do you think that existing societal organisations like fraternities aren’t build with the goal of facilitating friendship and loyalty? Do you think they fail at that and produce bad results?
It varies. That is a goal for some such organizations.
I think they produce bad results, while failing at the above goal, approximately to the degree that they rely on “emotion hacking”.