These are good questions, and I ask that you bear with me as I try to verbalize my gut-level response.
For the time being—taboo the word ritual. What is it that we did that is different from a “holiday party?” Be specific.
For one thing, you sang songs. Together. Songs intended to trigger emotional responses both by their content and by the fact that they were being sung as a group.
You recited litanies — again, together (right? please correct me if I’m misunderstanding any of the details here!) — and read “sermons” (of rationality content, albeit excellently written, of course; I certainly don’t deny that Eliezer’s writing is evocative), in a candle-lit room (with intentionally decreasing candlelight? I’m going by Yvain’s description here), again, in an atmosphere designed to evoke emotional responses.
If any of my friends suggested doing any of this at any holiday party I’ve been to, I (and most other people present) would look at them as if they had spontaneously gone stark raving mad. If the host of the party were the one suggesting this, and if they managed to make it happen, I would seriously consider never attending any of their holiday parties again.
There was apparently an altar? I understand this to be a metaphor for… something — a place for some prop(s) used in the ceremony? Heck, the fact that there WAS a ceremony at all, of any kind, is part of what I’m talking about.
As for the rest of your questions, I will have to give them a bit more thought before posting a reply. For now, I will emphasize that yes, ostracizing people who find this aesthetically unpleasant is indeed a non-trivial consequence, to say the least. Not the only consequence, but a serious one.
In the meantime, please clarify something: what exactly do you mean by “hack your psyche”? I think I understand the phrase as you’re using it, but it would help if I were sure.
“Hack your psyche” was Daenerys’ phrasing, but I’d approximately endorse it. Basically, there are ways that are brain works, badly. For example, we tend to want to shy away from harsh truths, and look for excuses not to do a lot of work. Reading Litanies of Tarski is explicitly supposed to build into yourself the idea that you are a person who IS capable of re-evalulating beliefs, regardless of how comfortable they are. Reciting the litany may or may not actually be useful for this, especially in group settings. I actually lean towards it NOT being that useful, but being harmless and fun. (More on this later)
In “The Value and Danger of Ritual” I go into how I used the ritual-development process to make myself the sort of person who cared about the world and was willing to work to improve it, even if it meant accepting math that felt intuitively wrong to me.
If any of my friends suggested doing any of this at any holiday party I’ve been to, I (and most other people present) would look at them as if they had spontaneously gone stark raving mad. If the host of the party were the one suggesting this, and if they managed to make it happen, I would seriously consider never attending any of their holiday parties again.
I do understand your visceral response to this (I can easily imagine similar visceral responses of my own to things that are only slightly different), but you make a leap from “the host does this thing which I am not used to” to “the host appears stark raving mad.” There’s a big gap there where I think you think something actually bad happened, but which you haven’t articulated any negative consequences beyond your instinctive aversion.
I recognize that this is asking a fairly hard question, and don’t feel obligated to respond right away. But I’d like to you to articulate, if you can, which of the following, you feel revulsion to:
Singing songs Singing songs about things you believe strongly in Singing or reciting things in groups
Making any deliberate effort to build group cohesion and signal tribal loyalty Having candles Deliberately lighting and extinguishing candles to produce an effect Deliberately manipulating lighting to produce an emotional effect
Reading excerpts from authors you like Reading excerpts from authors you respect a lot and who have shaped your worldview Reading excerpts from only one particular author you respect (I share this concern, I’ll address it in an upcoming post)
Giving a speech in deliberately manipulated lightning (taboo “sermon”) Giving a speech in to an audience whose emotional state has been deliberately altered Giving a speech whose goal is to build group unity Giving a speech whose goal is to call people to action towards a difficult goal
Having some meetups featuring group activities that some portion of the potential community won’t enjoy (examples include music, as well as strategy games, presentation on material you don’t care about) Having some group activities that some portion of the potential community actively dislikes
Deliberately provoking emotional responses (without attempting to build group cohesion or call to action)
Do any of those trigger a response individually? Can you identify which ones either cause a visceral response, or you feel would cause a negative consequence to occur? Either individually, or collectively?
Reciting the litany may or may not actually be useful for this, especially in group settings. I actually lean towards it NOT being that useful, but being harmless and fun.
I thought the Litany worked really well as a running gag, especially with the addition of the meta-litany as a punchline.
If reciting the Litany of Tarski in a group setting is valuable, I desire to BELIEVE that reciting the Litany of Tarski in a group setting is valuable. If reciting the Litany of Tarski in a group setting is NOT valuable, I desire to believe that reciting the Litany of Tarski in a group setting is NOT valuable. Let me not become too attached to beliefs I may not want.
Oh I thought it was fun and funny and worth including on those grounds, but I don’t think it caused most people to actually reflect on anything useful in the long term.
I do understand your visceral response to this (I can easily imagine similar visceral responses of my own to things that are only slightly different), but you make a leap from “the host does this thing which I am not used to” to “the host appears stark raving mad.” There’s a big gap there where I think you think something actually bad happened, but which you haven’t articulated any negative consequences beyond your instinctive aversion.
Mmm… no, I don’t think there’s actually a leap here. You should understand that by “stark raving mad” I didn’t actually mean anything like “I am seriously considering the possibility that my friend has had a sudden onset of severe, debilitating mental illness, and I should contact the nearest hospital forthwith”. I meant something more like “my friend has suggested an activity which I find aesthetically objectionable, though I don’t necessarily have any moral objections to it, and I am aware that some people out there do this and enjoy it, and that’s fine. I am surprised to hear my friend suggest it, because I did not think he/she was the kind of person who enjoyed it, and am additionally surprised that he/she would think that I or any of our other friends would enjoy it, as that conflicts with what we all know about each other’s personalities and preferences.” As an example, if I were at a party and one of my friends said: “Hey, let’s go to a strip club, and then a football game!” My reaction would be similar. I don’t think there’s anything morally wrong with strip clubs or football games (not inherently, anyway), but if one of my friends suggested that we go do this, I would be unpleasantly surprised, to say the least.
Of course there was also a strong element of, as you say, visceral response.
I will attempt to respond to your questions on visceral responses; I have to demur for now on negative consequences, though I will give it some thought and attempt a coherent reply soon.
Do I feel revulsion to:
Singing songs Singing songs about things you believe strongly in Singing or reciting things in groups
Yes (somewhat), … (am having trouble coming up with any examples and therefore no response for now; can you provide any?), yes (strongly).
Making any deliberate effort to build group cohesion and signal tribal loyalty Having candles Deliberately lighting and extinguishing candles to produce an effect Deliberately manipulating lighting to produce an emotional effect
Yes (strongly), no (unless they’re scented, in which case yes, blegh), yes, yes.
Reading excerpts from authors you like Reading excerpts from authors you respect a lot and who have shaped your worldview Reading excerpts from only one particular author you respect (I share this concern, I’ll address it in an upcoming post)
Depends on the context. Are we holding an excerpt-reading-aloud party? (Is that a thing? It should be a thing, I think. Like a poetry reading, only… reading cool stuff other people wrote aloud. I’d participate maybe.) Then no, no objection. Are we doing it because this excerpt(s) triggered an emotional response and that’s what we’re going for overall? Then yes, strongly object.
My objection in this case is affected by whether we’re reading the thing with the intention of thinking and discussing it, in a casual atmosphere, or with the intention of not discussing it but instead just using it to generate emotions.
As for reading excerpts from only one particular author… I mean, I agree that it’s a concern… but I admit that it’s hard to get around the fact that Eliezer’s writing is exceptionally excellent. This, however, is really not the biggest problem in the whole enterprise.
Giving a speech in deliberately manipulated lightning (taboo “sermon”) Giving a speech in to an audience whose emotional state has been deliberately altered Giving a speech whose goal is to build group unity Giving a speech whose goal is to call people to action towards a difficult goal
Yes, yes, yes, and… mmm… no? But something about the phrasing strikes me oddly and I can’t put my finger on it...
Having some meetups featuring group activities that some portion of the potential community won’t enjoy (examples include music, as well as strategy games, presentation on material you don’t care about) Having some group activities that some portion of the potential community actively dislikes
These things don’t trigger revulsion, especially not the first (one would have to be truly unreasonable to object to that!), but of course I don’t like it when groups that I’m a member in have activities that I don’t like. (Isn’t that almost tautological?)
Deliberately provoking emotional responses (without attempting to build group cohesion or call to action)
Somewhat. I’m very wary of this sort of thing, but I don’t think I find it inherently objectionable.
I find your analogy about the sports game and stripclub pretty useful. I think that’s a very reasonable comparison.
I am interested in the notion that you object to provoking emotion on purpose objectionable. Does this apply to art in general? (On a similar note—do you go to movies or see plays? Do you go ever dim lights for romantic purposes?)
(The above sentence may sound like it’s trying to set up a gotcha, but I am mostly just clarifying that you are someone who likes to explore and engage intellectually, but not emotionally)
but of course I don’t like it when groups that I’m a member in have activities that I don’t like. (Isn’t that almost tautological?)
If a group is meeting regularly, doing things you like, does it make your world worse if they start meeting additional times, doing things that you don’t like?
I am interested in the notion that you object to provoking emotion on purpose objectionable.
That conclusion about my general preferences does not follow from my stated specific preferences.
Does this apply to art in general?
Not… in general, no. I do strongly dislike it when authors/directors/etc. provoke emotion in a deliberate attempt to misdirect the reader/viewer/etc. from considering what is going on in the work. That is, when there is an attempt to provoke emotion directly, rather than as a result of seeing/reading/otherwise apprehending the content. I will attempt to provide examples when I think of some.
(On a similar note—do you go to movies or see plays? Do you go ever dim lights for romantic purposes?)
I do go to movies, and even Broadway shows, though not plays, and do on occasion dim lights for romantic purposes (or, to be more precise, locate intended-to-be-romantic activities in locations with suitable light levels… which phrasing makes it sound rather unromantic, I suppose… ah well).
I am mostly just clarifying that you are someone who likes to explore and engage intellectually, but not emotionally
I don’t actually think this is a fair characterization. As I said to Kaj_Sotala here, it’s the collectivization of emotion, and of the emotion of sacredness in this case, that I object to.
If a group is meeting regularly, doing things you like, does it make your world worse if they start meeting additional times, doing things that you don’t like?
Maybe. It depends on the relative extent to which the activites I like and the activities I dislike contribute to the group’s identity and cohesiveness.
That conclusion about my general preferences does not follow from my stated specific preferences.
I may have worded it more strongly than you intended, but I thought you said:
deliberately provoking emotional responses (without attempting to build group cohesion or call to action)
Somewhat. I’m very wary of this sort of thing, but I don’t think I find it inherently objectionable.
In any case, I think I have at least a reasonable understanding of where you’re coming from. That’s all I have to say for now, although if you are able to articulate some of the other concerns you mentioned better that’d be appreciated.
There will be one more post which is something of an “emotional explanation of why I’m doing what I’m doing,” which is intended to be evocative but grounded in something very real. That will probably go up tomorrow. A few days later I’ll write up a more expansive post about where the idea of ritual and less wrong might or might not go, and what concerns I have about that.
I think this wonderfully evokes a point which may be off the radar, namely, that ‘ritual’ or whatever you call it (the possibility for group aesthetic experiences) is all around us in society. It permeates everything, it is all pervasive. I think that is true.
Choose the ritual that is right for you… not because it is most moving or pretty, but because it is the most true as far as you can discern.
A tangential point: It seems to me that aesthetic questions, questions of art, beauty, poetry, and the place of literature while occasionally mentioned are Less Wrong’s greatest blind spot. To recall Hamlet, it seems to me that there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your rationality. Perhaps there are questions which we are not ready to discuss, which is fine. We don’t necessarily need to attack the immense, perhaps incommensurable, differences between the aesthetic morality of people-who-think-they-think-rationally, us.
These are good questions, and I ask that you bear with me as I try to verbalize my gut-level response.
For one thing, you sang songs. Together. Songs intended to trigger emotional responses both by their content and by the fact that they were being sung as a group.
You recited litanies — again, together (right? please correct me if I’m misunderstanding any of the details here!) — and read “sermons” (of rationality content, albeit excellently written, of course; I certainly don’t deny that Eliezer’s writing is evocative), in a candle-lit room (with intentionally decreasing candlelight? I’m going by Yvain’s description here), again, in an atmosphere designed to evoke emotional responses.
If any of my friends suggested doing any of this at any holiday party I’ve been to, I (and most other people present) would look at them as if they had spontaneously gone stark raving mad. If the host of the party were the one suggesting this, and if they managed to make it happen, I would seriously consider never attending any of their holiday parties again.
There was apparently an altar? I understand this to be a metaphor for… something — a place for some prop(s) used in the ceremony? Heck, the fact that there WAS a ceremony at all, of any kind, is part of what I’m talking about.
As for the rest of your questions, I will have to give them a bit more thought before posting a reply. For now, I will emphasize that yes, ostracizing people who find this aesthetically unpleasant is indeed a non-trivial consequence, to say the least. Not the only consequence, but a serious one.
In the meantime, please clarify something: what exactly do you mean by “hack your psyche”? I think I understand the phrase as you’re using it, but it would help if I were sure.
“Hack your psyche” was Daenerys’ phrasing, but I’d approximately endorse it. Basically, there are ways that are brain works, badly. For example, we tend to want to shy away from harsh truths, and look for excuses not to do a lot of work. Reading Litanies of Tarski is explicitly supposed to build into yourself the idea that you are a person who IS capable of re-evalulating beliefs, regardless of how comfortable they are. Reciting the litany may or may not actually be useful for this, especially in group settings. I actually lean towards it NOT being that useful, but being harmless and fun. (More on this later)
In “The Value and Danger of Ritual” I go into how I used the ritual-development process to make myself the sort of person who cared about the world and was willing to work to improve it, even if it meant accepting math that felt intuitively wrong to me.
I do understand your visceral response to this (I can easily imagine similar visceral responses of my own to things that are only slightly different), but you make a leap from “the host does this thing which I am not used to” to “the host appears stark raving mad.” There’s a big gap there where I think you think something actually bad happened, but which you haven’t articulated any negative consequences beyond your instinctive aversion.
I recognize that this is asking a fairly hard question, and don’t feel obligated to respond right away. But I’d like to you to articulate, if you can, which of the following, you feel revulsion to:
Singing songs
Singing songs about things you believe strongly in
Singing or reciting things in groups
Making any deliberate effort to build group cohesion and signal tribal loyalty
Having candles
Deliberately lighting and extinguishing candles to produce an effect
Deliberately manipulating lighting to produce an emotional effect
Reading excerpts from authors you like
Reading excerpts from authors you respect a lot and who have shaped your worldview
Reading excerpts from only one particular author you respect (I share this concern, I’ll address it in an upcoming post)
Giving a speech in deliberately manipulated lightning (taboo “sermon”)
Giving a speech in to an audience whose emotional state has been deliberately altered
Giving a speech whose goal is to build group unity
Giving a speech whose goal is to call people to action towards a difficult goal
Having some meetups featuring group activities that some portion of the potential community won’t enjoy (examples include music, as well as strategy games, presentation on material you don’t care about)
Having some group activities that some portion of the potential community actively dislikes
Deliberately provoking emotional responses (without attempting to build group cohesion or call to action)
Do any of those trigger a response individually? Can you identify which ones either cause a visceral response, or you feel would cause a negative consequence to occur? Either individually, or collectively?
I thought the Litany worked really well as a running gag, especially with the addition of the meta-litany as a punchline.
If reciting the Litany of Tarski in a group setting is valuable, I desire to BELIEVE that reciting the Litany of Tarski in a group setting is valuable. If reciting the Litany of Tarski in a group setting is NOT valuable, I desire to believe that reciting the Litany of Tarski in a group setting is NOT valuable. Let me not become too attached to beliefs I may not want.
Oh I thought it was fun and funny and worth including on those grounds, but I don’t think it caused most people to actually reflect on anything useful in the long term.
Mmm… no, I don’t think there’s actually a leap here. You should understand that by “stark raving mad” I didn’t actually mean anything like “I am seriously considering the possibility that my friend has had a sudden onset of severe, debilitating mental illness, and I should contact the nearest hospital forthwith”. I meant something more like “my friend has suggested an activity which I find aesthetically objectionable, though I don’t necessarily have any moral objections to it, and I am aware that some people out there do this and enjoy it, and that’s fine. I am surprised to hear my friend suggest it, because I did not think he/she was the kind of person who enjoyed it, and am additionally surprised that he/she would think that I or any of our other friends would enjoy it, as that conflicts with what we all know about each other’s personalities and preferences.” As an example, if I were at a party and one of my friends said: “Hey, let’s go to a strip club, and then a football game!” My reaction would be similar. I don’t think there’s anything morally wrong with strip clubs or football games (not inherently, anyway), but if one of my friends suggested that we go do this, I would be unpleasantly surprised, to say the least.
Of course there was also a strong element of, as you say, visceral response.
I will attempt to respond to your questions on visceral responses; I have to demur for now on negative consequences, though I will give it some thought and attempt a coherent reply soon.
Do I feel revulsion to:
Yes (somewhat), … (am having trouble coming up with any examples and therefore no response for now; can you provide any?), yes (strongly).
Yes (strongly), no (unless they’re scented, in which case yes, blegh), yes, yes.
Depends on the context. Are we holding an excerpt-reading-aloud party? (Is that a thing? It should be a thing, I think. Like a poetry reading, only… reading cool stuff other people wrote aloud. I’d participate maybe.) Then no, no objection. Are we doing it because this excerpt(s) triggered an emotional response and that’s what we’re going for overall? Then yes, strongly object.
My objection in this case is affected by whether we’re reading the thing with the intention of thinking and discussing it, in a casual atmosphere, or with the intention of not discussing it but instead just using it to generate emotions.
As for reading excerpts from only one particular author… I mean, I agree that it’s a concern… but I admit that it’s hard to get around the fact that Eliezer’s writing is exceptionally excellent. This, however, is really not the biggest problem in the whole enterprise.
Yes, yes, yes, and… mmm… no? But something about the phrasing strikes me oddly and I can’t put my finger on it...
These things don’t trigger revulsion, especially not the first (one would have to be truly unreasonable to object to that!), but of course I don’t like it when groups that I’m a member in have activities that I don’t like. (Isn’t that almost tautological?)
Somewhat. I’m very wary of this sort of thing, but I don’t think I find it inherently objectionable.
Hm.
I find your analogy about the sports game and stripclub pretty useful. I think that’s a very reasonable comparison.
I am interested in the notion that you object to provoking emotion on purpose objectionable. Does this apply to art in general? (On a similar note—do you go to movies or see plays? Do you go ever dim lights for romantic purposes?)
(The above sentence may sound like it’s trying to set up a gotcha, but I am mostly just clarifying that you are someone who likes to explore and engage intellectually, but not emotionally)
If a group is meeting regularly, doing things you like, does it make your world worse if they start meeting additional times, doing things that you don’t like?
I would say no, but the exigences of reality mean that extra activities tend to replace rather than simply add to prior ones.
That is fair.
That conclusion about my general preferences does not follow from my stated specific preferences.
Not… in general, no. I do strongly dislike it when authors/directors/etc. provoke emotion in a deliberate attempt to misdirect the reader/viewer/etc. from considering what is going on in the work. That is, when there is an attempt to provoke emotion directly, rather than as a result of seeing/reading/otherwise apprehending the content. I will attempt to provide examples when I think of some.
I do go to movies, and even Broadway shows, though not plays, and do on occasion dim lights for romantic purposes (or, to be more precise, locate intended-to-be-romantic activities in locations with suitable light levels… which phrasing makes it sound rather unromantic, I suppose… ah well).
I don’t actually think this is a fair characterization. As I said to Kaj_Sotala here, it’s the collectivization of emotion, and of the emotion of sacredness in this case, that I object to.
Maybe. It depends on the relative extent to which the activites I like and the activities I dislike contribute to the group’s identity and cohesiveness.
I may have worded it more strongly than you intended, but I thought you said:
In any case, I think I have at least a reasonable understanding of where you’re coming from. That’s all I have to say for now, although if you are able to articulate some of the other concerns you mentioned better that’d be appreciated.
There will be one more post which is something of an “emotional explanation of why I’m doing what I’m doing,” which is intended to be evocative but grounded in something very real. That will probably go up tomorrow. A few days later I’ll write up a more expansive post about where the idea of ritual and less wrong might or might not go, and what concerns I have about that.
I think this wonderfully evokes a point which may be off the radar, namely, that ‘ritual’ or whatever you call it (the possibility for group aesthetic experiences) is all around us in society. It permeates everything, it is all pervasive. I think that is true.
Choose the ritual that is right for you… not because it is most moving or pretty, but because it is the most true as far as you can discern.
A tangential point: It seems to me that aesthetic questions, questions of art, beauty, poetry, and the place of literature while occasionally mentioned are Less Wrong’s greatest blind spot. To recall Hamlet, it seems to me that there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your rationality. Perhaps there are questions which we are not ready to discuss, which is fine. We don’t necessarily need to attack the immense, perhaps incommensurable, differences between the aesthetic morality of people-who-think-they-think-rationally, us.