Which assumptions generated the incorrect predictions? Are you pulling your Bayesian updates backwards through the belief-propogation network given this new evidence?
(In other words: updating on a small probability event should change your mind about a whole host of related beliefs.)
I think it was some variant of the Typical Mind Fallacy, albeit one based not only on my own preferences but on those of my friends (though of course you’d expect that I’d associate with people who have preferences similar to mine, so this does not make the fallacy much more excusable).
I think the main belief I’ve updated based on this is my estimate on the prevalence of my sort of individualistic, suspicious-of-groups, allergic-to-crowds, solitude-valuing outlook in the Less Wrong community, which I have adjusted strongly downward (although that adjustment has been tempered by the suspicion, confirmed by a couple of comments on this post, that people who object to things such as rituals etc. often simply don’t speak up).
I have also been reminded of something I guess I knew but hadn’t quite absorbed, which is that, apparently, many people in aspiring rationalist communities come from religious backgrounds. This of course makes sense given the base rates. What I didn’t expect is that people would value the ritual trappings of their religious upbringing, and value them enough to construct new rituals with similar forms.
I will also add that despite this evidence that way more people like rituals than I’d have expected, and my adjustment of my beliefs about this, I am still unable to alieve it. Liking ritual, experiencing a need for and enjoyment of collectivized sacredness, is completely alien to me to the point where I am unable to imagine it.
(although that adjustment has been tempered by the suspicion, confirmed by a couple of comments on this post, that people who object to things such as rituals etc. often simply don’t speak up)
For epistemology’s sake I’ll speak up so you may be more confident in the suspicion...
I find these rituals, as described, to be completely uninteresting as social activities, and have a visceral negative reaction to imagining people doing this, even semi-seriously. “Group self-hacking for cohesion and bonding” is the...sort-of good way to put it I guess, because I would rather describe it as “optimistically wielding double-edged daggers forged from the Dark Arts”.
I do want to note that, for at least one proponent of the ritual (Yvain, see here), the “cohesion and bonding” turned out not to be the underlying motivation. This makes sense to me, and I am very suspicious about any claims such as “research indicates that group bonding increases happiness, so I choose to do this thing that I believe will generate group bonding”, or “group cohesiveness is beneficial, so we should have rituals because they promote group cohesiveness”. They just don’t ring true; I have a hard time believing that people think that way. It seems to me that some people just really like and enjoy rituals. I don’t really understand why, of course, but that’s just because my preference skews in the opposite direction. The stuff about bonding and cohesion seems like rationalization, or, at best, an attempt to describe one’s bare preference, rather than an explanation of what actually motivated a choice.
That having been said, I quite agree that rituals are forged from the Dark Arts. This contributes to, though does not constitute, my dislike of them.
Thanks! You have already updated, so I’m not sure if you want to update further, but I’m wondering if you had read Why our kind can’t cooperate, and what your reaction to that was?
I have indeed read it; I’ve even linked it to other people on this site myself, and taken explicit steps to counteract the effect; see e.g. this post.
I have no problem saying “I agree; you are right and/or this is awesome”. This happens to be a topic to which my reaction is otherwise. I think it’s especially important to speak up in cases where I disagree and where I think a number of other people also disagree but hesitate to speak.
Sorry, that’s not the context at which I meant it—I’m sure you’re as willing to admit you were wrong as the next rationalist. I mean it in the context of “Barbarians vs. Rationalists”—if group cohesion is increased by ritual, and group cohesion is useful to the rationality movement, than ritual could be useful. Wanting to dissociate ourselves from the trappings of religion seems like a case of “reversed stupidity” to me...
Wanting to dissociate ourselves from the trappings of religion seems like a case of “reversed stupidity” to me...
Yes, and if that were the reason behind my dislike of ritual, that would be an apropos comment; but as I explained, that’s not the case.
(I apologize for the harsh tone there, but I am failing to think of a way to express that response with a suitable level of tact, maybe because it’s 2 AM here. Sorry. :\ )
As for the larger “Barbarians vs. Rationalists” point, I have two responses.
One: I really don’t think that “rituals generate group cohesion, and group cohesion is useful” is actually anyone’s true motivation here. I think people just like rituals. Which… is fine (with some caveats), even if I dislike it. But I don’t think we should be putting forth rationalizations as true motivations.
Two: I don’t think we should look at everything solely through the lens of “is this useful to the rationality movement”. If doing things that are “useful to the rationality movement” causes us to systematically do things we don’t actually like doing, or want to do, then I think we’ve rather missed the point. Now you might respond: “But Said, we do like this thing! We do want to do it!” Well, ok. Then do it. But then, as the mathematicians say, this reduces to the earlier argument.
Which assumptions generated the incorrect predictions? Are you pulling your Bayesian updates backwards through the belief-propogation network given this new evidence? (In other words: updating on a small probability event should change your mind about a whole host of related beliefs.)
I think it was some variant of the Typical Mind Fallacy, albeit one based not only on my own preferences but on those of my friends (though of course you’d expect that I’d associate with people who have preferences similar to mine, so this does not make the fallacy much more excusable).
I think the main belief I’ve updated based on this is my estimate on the prevalence of my sort of individualistic, suspicious-of-groups, allergic-to-crowds, solitude-valuing outlook in the Less Wrong community, which I have adjusted strongly downward (although that adjustment has been tempered by the suspicion, confirmed by a couple of comments on this post, that people who object to things such as rituals etc. often simply don’t speak up).
I have also been reminded of something I guess I knew but hadn’t quite absorbed, which is that, apparently, many people in aspiring rationalist communities come from religious backgrounds. This of course makes sense given the base rates. What I didn’t expect is that people would value the ritual trappings of their religious upbringing, and value them enough to construct new rituals with similar forms.
I will also add that despite this evidence that way more people like rituals than I’d have expected, and my adjustment of my beliefs about this, I am still unable to alieve it. Liking ritual, experiencing a need for and enjoyment of collectivized sacredness, is completely alien to me to the point where I am unable to imagine it.
For epistemology’s sake I’ll speak up so you may be more confident in the suspicion...
I find these rituals, as described, to be completely uninteresting as social activities, and have a visceral negative reaction to imagining people doing this, even semi-seriously. “Group self-hacking for cohesion and bonding” is the...sort-of good way to put it I guess, because I would rather describe it as “optimistically wielding double-edged daggers forged from the Dark Arts”.
Thank you for posting, I really do appreciate it.
I do want to note that, for at least one proponent of the ritual (Yvain, see here), the “cohesion and bonding” turned out not to be the underlying motivation. This makes sense to me, and I am very suspicious about any claims such as “research indicates that group bonding increases happiness, so I choose to do this thing that I believe will generate group bonding”, or “group cohesiveness is beneficial, so we should have rituals because they promote group cohesiveness”. They just don’t ring true; I have a hard time believing that people think that way. It seems to me that some people just really like and enjoy rituals. I don’t really understand why, of course, but that’s just because my preference skews in the opposite direction. The stuff about bonding and cohesion seems like rationalization, or, at best, an attempt to describe one’s bare preference, rather than an explanation of what actually motivated a choice.
That having been said, I quite agree that rituals are forged from the Dark Arts. This contributes to, though does not constitute, my dislike of them.
Thanks! You have already updated, so I’m not sure if you want to update further, but I’m wondering if you had read Why our kind can’t cooperate, and what your reaction to that was?
I have indeed read it; I’ve even linked it to other people on this site myself, and taken explicit steps to counteract the effect; see e.g. this post.
I have no problem saying “I agree; you are right and/or this is awesome”. This happens to be a topic to which my reaction is otherwise. I think it’s especially important to speak up in cases where I disagree and where I think a number of other people also disagree but hesitate to speak.
Sorry, that’s not the context at which I meant it—I’m sure you’re as willing to admit you were wrong as the next rationalist. I mean it in the context of “Barbarians vs. Rationalists”—if group cohesion is increased by ritual, and group cohesion is useful to the rationality movement, than ritual could be useful. Wanting to dissociate ourselves from the trappings of religion seems like a case of “reversed stupidity” to me...
Yes, and if that were the reason behind my dislike of ritual, that would be an apropos comment; but as I explained, that’s not the case.
(I apologize for the harsh tone there, but I am failing to think of a way to express that response with a suitable level of tact, maybe because it’s 2 AM here. Sorry. :\ )
As for the larger “Barbarians vs. Rationalists” point, I have two responses.
One: I really don’t think that “rituals generate group cohesion, and group cohesion is useful” is actually anyone’s true motivation here. I think people just like rituals. Which… is fine (with some caveats), even if I dislike it. But I don’t think we should be putting forth rationalizations as true motivations.
Two: I don’t think we should look at everything solely through the lens of “is this useful to the rationality movement”. If doing things that are “useful to the rationality movement” causes us to systematically do things we don’t actually like doing, or want to do, then I think we’ve rather missed the point. Now you might respond: “But Said, we do like this thing! We do want to do it!” Well, ok. Then do it. But then, as the mathematicians say, this reduces to the earlier argument.