I’m not a regular member of this community, OR a resident of the Bay Area, so apply extreme skepticism to my observations and my suggestions. They are submitted with significant humility.
I don’t think there’s any practical way to relocate a cultural hub on purpose. It might move on its own, over time, but that will be an incremental process. So, to some degree, I think this discussion is moot. Even if a few huge players announced an agreed upon “Second Hub” I don’t think many people would/could just pick up and go there.
Nevertheless, various factors (COVID, better online collaboration tools, economic factors that make the Bay Area uniquely difficult) do seem to acting to make relocation an easier sell, so it’s reasonable to think about this.
Trying to list all the things that would make an alternate location better is a bad approach. It will be a different list for everyone. Anywhere that would tick off most of the boxes currently ticked off by the Bay Area would probably also have the same flaws as the Bay Area.
That said, I think there is one sort-of easy answer that SORT-OF gets at the root problem. The root problem is not the Bay Area per se. The root problem is that “rationality” as a project, is not a location based activity, and putting all the rationality actors in one place is not an obviously-effective strategy to spreading and evolving rational thought.
If all the Catholics lived in Rome, I don’t think most of the world would care about Catholicism very much.
Or, if religious analogies are disturbing, we could say “if all the Democrats clustered into two coastal states, they would win a lot of popular votes but lose the Senate over and over.”
Concentration can help with sharing/incubating/evolving ideas, but it has enormous downsides if you’re actually trying to promulgate a program. And sharing ideas without physical proximity is easier than ever. This suggests that spreading out may be a better strategy.
I would advocate you spread out to somewhere close to where you are from. “Go home.” Here are my reasons for advocating this:
The marginal value of one person applying science and reason-based approaches to local problems is likely to be higher in a community where such approaches are rare, compared to huge rationality hubs, where they’re pretty common. As an example, leading an effort to institute ranked-choice voting in Charleston West Virginia might create a larger impact than working at a Bay Area startup, even if the startup is working on an interesting topic. There are communities around the country where no one is even TRYING to improve the epistemic quality of local culture and governance. Having even one person is much, much better than having zero.
Moving to a place where you have local connections may increase your utility. If you have established family in rural Oklahoma, it may be possible to meet and converse with mayors, city councils, school boards, etc. These are the advantages of being an average fish in a small pond, vs a tiny fish in a giant pond.
Holing up in a hub means that like-minded people can exchange ideas, but it means that people with very different experiences are not being consulted at all. Is it possible that the best ideas for improving zoning laws can be found in Texas, not California? Is it possible the best experts in automation are in Pittsburgh, not Boston? Is it possible there is better economics work being done in St. Louis than London? I’m not claiming this is true, but it’s certainly possible. If it sometimes seems like Rationalists only seem interested in the problems, perspectives, and solutions relevant to 20-40 year-old upper middle class technologists living in central California, well, there are reasons that might have happened. I certainly get a parochial, elitist, Bay-centric vibe from this community. I once wrote something critical of the Bay Area in response to a post by Rob Wiblin, who responded, in effect “I don’t know why we would cater to people who choose to live in the middle of nowhere.” I mean, it’s the vast majority of the human race, but ok, Rob. Geographic diversity would bring in new ideas but more importantly, it would bring in new people. Shout-out to the Slate Star Codex regional meetups. That’s a great idea, and was a lot of fun even in central Kentucky.
The quality of life in mid-American cities is undervalued. Maybe this is an experience unique to me, and I’m just biased. But it seems true. I’ve visited New York and San Francisco and DC many times, and I admit they are superior cities. But dollar for dollar, I think they are VASTLY over-rated. The quality of night-life, local community, schools, housing, transit, parks, ecology, etc. etc. in other cities I’ve visited and lived in are perhaps 70-80% as good, while costing 50% or less, and avoiding huge logistical hassles. I live in New Orleans, where I can own a three-bedroom house with a separate rented unit that keeps my total housing costs below $1000/month, in a very safe neighborhood near one of the best public schools, while still visiting world-class cultural activities (well, pre-COVID). The ceiling is much lower than New York, no doubt, but how often is the average New Yorker attending the Metropolitan Opera or Broadway shows? I can still visit New York if I want to have apex cultural experiences. And I can afford to do so.
If you’re from a small town that is literally a cultural backwater with nothing to recommend it, consider the nearest college town or midsized city. I lived in Lexington, Kentucky for several years and loved it.
I suspect that low preference for having kids may be, in some community members, an EFFECT of living in expensive, ultra-competitive, or difficult city, and not a cause. In other words, I wonder if people who say “I don’t mind having to commute by train from my 500 sq ft efficiency to my urban-center job while not being able to accrue any housing equity, because I don’t really want to start a family anyway,” are actually downplaying any urge for family planning because it’s logistically impractical. I’m not a die-hard having-kids advocate, but personally I underestimated the positive valence of having a child, so I think it’s something to consider.
The previous comments all basically assume the reader is American—I’m sorry that I’m only able to write from my experience as a native born US citizen, and I realize that there could be much more substantial costs associated with trying to “go home” to a foreign country, including loss of resident status, political oppression, etc. I still think immigrants should consider mid-America cities as an improved value proposition, but I don’t know if it would offer opportunities to increase your effectiveness (especially if it opened you up to bigotry or discrimination), and it’s possible the special benefits of having a local expatriate community from your own country would make large coastal hubs irreplaceable. Fair.
If all the Catholics lived in Rome, I don’t think most of the world would care about Catholicism very much.
Currently both the Amish and the Mormons are more effective at increasing their believer counts then the catholics.
In both cases there’s a strong focus on a certain demographic region.
The root problem is that “rationality” as a project, is not a location based activity, and putting all the rationality actors in one place is not an obviously-effective strategy to spreading and evolving rational thought.
If you see the project of rationality as mainly about spreading what we already have, then being distributed would make sense. If you see it more as being about going from 0 to 1 and evolving new rationalist techniques and models, it’s more useful to be concentrated.
Evolving rational thought is about sitting down together and doing hard work. Being in the same location helps with doing hard work together. It also makes it easier to pass knowledge about experiments, both successful and failed along.
I don’t think there’s any practical way to relocate a cultural hub on purpose. It might move on its own, over time, but that will be an incremental process. So, to some degree, I think this discussion is moot. Even if a few huge players announced an agreed upon “Second Hub” I don’t think many people would/could just pick up and go there.
An incremental process may still benefit from coordination. If once in a while somebody decides to move to “a place with many rationalists that is not Bay Area”, it may help if it is common knowledge that X is the place. So instead of three people moving to Boston, three people moving to Toronto, and three people moving to New Hampshire, we might get nine people moving to e.g. Boston.
putting all the rationality actors in one place is not an obviously-effective strategy to spreading and evolving rational thought. If all the Catholics lived in Rome, I don’t think most of the world would care about Catholicism very much.
But also, if each Catholic lived in a different town, Catholicism would disappear in one generation.
I wonder how much “spreading rationality” actually happens offline. At least I think I haven’t converted a single person, regardless of how many local meetups I organized. The local rationalists I know are those who came to the first meetups already being rationalists. It is great to meet each other sometimes, but it is unrelated to spreading rational thought.
Seems to me that as long as the internet debates remain, the recruitment channels will remain untouched, even if we all moved to the same place (which is unlikely to happen). Unless we all lived so close to each other that we would no longer feel a need to go debate online. But I assume there will always be more than one hub; and then there will at least be an online communication between them.
if all the Democrats clustered into two coastal states, they would win a lot of popular votes but lose the Senate over and over
Given our numbers, our situation is more similar to Libertarians than to Democrats, which kinda makes this an argument in favor of New Hampshire. :)
The marginal value of one person applying science and reason-based approaches to local problems is likely to be higher in a community where such approaches are rare, compared to huge rationality hubs, where they’re pretty common. [...] Having even one person is much, much better than having zero.
This assumes that people listen to the lonely rational person.
But my actual objection is more like “put your oxygen mask on first”. If rationalists are rare, it is important to protect them against burning out, which can be achieved by a supporting environment. And if a rationalist wants to address a local problem, it seems useful to have other rationalists familiar with the same problem, so they can share knowledge, discuss strategies, cooperate. (Which approach is better, probably depends on the specific problem.)
If it sometimes seems like Rationalists only seem interested in the problems, perspectives, and solutions relevant to 20-40 year-old upper middle class technologists living in central California, well, there are reasons that might have happened. I certainly get a parochial, elitist, Bay-centric vibe from this community. I once wrote something critical of the Bay Area in response to a post by Rob Wiblin, who responded, in effect “I don’t know why we would cater to people who choose to live in the middle of nowhere.”
I think here we agree a lot. You don’t have to put a sign saying “if you are not a young technologist, you are not welcome among us” in front of your door—moving to a place where hardly anyone else can afford the rent achieves exactly the same outcome. Which is why I am in favor of coordinating on another, less insane place.
This said, it seems to me that the Bay-centrism is gradually getting weaker than it used to be. (Not sure why; I suspect the influence of people who moved to Bay Area after participating in a local rationalist community elsewhere.) A few years ago, having a serious debate about moving away from Bay Area would be unthinkable.
I suspect that low preference for having kids may be, in some community members, an EFFECT of living in expensive, ultra-competitive, or difficult city, and not a cause.
Yep. I guess for some it is a genuine preference; for some it is rationalization of not being able to afford it; and for some it is a peer pressure from the previous two groups. (And a few can afford it, and go ahead.) I predict that if the main cultural hub moves to a cheaper and family-friendlier place, we will see a “rationalist baby boom” within five years.
Thanks for the chance to offer my opinion.
You probably just won the prize for the highest upvoted first comment. Congratulations!
To say the obvious, don’t let my disagreement discourage you. (Also, we probably agree more than disagree, because I was more likely to react to those points where I had an opposite opinion.)
I’m not a regular member of this community, OR a resident of the Bay Area, so apply extreme skepticism to my observations and my suggestions. They are submitted with significant humility.
I don’t think there’s any practical way to relocate a cultural hub on purpose. It might move on its own, over time, but that will be an incremental process. So, to some degree, I think this discussion is moot. Even if a few huge players announced an agreed upon “Second Hub” I don’t think many people would/could just pick up and go there.
Nevertheless, various factors (COVID, better online collaboration tools, economic factors that make the Bay Area uniquely difficult) do seem to acting to make relocation an easier sell, so it’s reasonable to think about this.
Trying to list all the things that would make an alternate location better is a bad approach. It will be a different list for everyone. Anywhere that would tick off most of the boxes currently ticked off by the Bay Area would probably also have the same flaws as the Bay Area.
That said, I think there is one sort-of easy answer that SORT-OF gets at the root problem. The root problem is not the Bay Area per se. The root problem is that “rationality” as a project, is not a location based activity, and putting all the rationality actors in one place is not an obviously-effective strategy to spreading and evolving rational thought.
If all the Catholics lived in Rome, I don’t think most of the world would care about Catholicism very much.
Or, if religious analogies are disturbing, we could say “if all the Democrats clustered into two coastal states, they would win a lot of popular votes but lose the Senate over and over.”
Concentration can help with sharing/incubating/evolving ideas, but it has enormous downsides if you’re actually trying to promulgate a program. And sharing ideas without physical proximity is easier than ever. This suggests that spreading out may be a better strategy.
I would advocate you spread out to somewhere close to where you are from. “Go home.” Here are my reasons for advocating this:
The marginal value of one person applying science and reason-based approaches to local problems is likely to be higher in a community where such approaches are rare, compared to huge rationality hubs, where they’re pretty common. As an example, leading an effort to institute ranked-choice voting in Charleston West Virginia might create a larger impact than working at a Bay Area startup, even if the startup is working on an interesting topic. There are communities around the country where no one is even TRYING to improve the epistemic quality of local culture and governance. Having even one person is much, much better than having zero.
Moving to a place where you have local connections may increase your utility. If you have established family in rural Oklahoma, it may be possible to meet and converse with mayors, city councils, school boards, etc. These are the advantages of being an average fish in a small pond, vs a tiny fish in a giant pond.
Holing up in a hub means that like-minded people can exchange ideas, but it means that people with very different experiences are not being consulted at all. Is it possible that the best ideas for improving zoning laws can be found in Texas, not California? Is it possible the best experts in automation are in Pittsburgh, not Boston? Is it possible there is better economics work being done in St. Louis than London? I’m not claiming this is true, but it’s certainly possible. If it sometimes seems like Rationalists only seem interested in the problems, perspectives, and solutions relevant to 20-40 year-old upper middle class technologists living in central California, well, there are reasons that might have happened. I certainly get a parochial, elitist, Bay-centric vibe from this community. I once wrote something critical of the Bay Area in response to a post by Rob Wiblin, who responded, in effect “I don’t know why we would cater to people who choose to live in the middle of nowhere.” I mean, it’s the vast majority of the human race, but ok, Rob. Geographic diversity would bring in new ideas but more importantly, it would bring in new people. Shout-out to the Slate Star Codex regional meetups. That’s a great idea, and was a lot of fun even in central Kentucky.
The quality of life in mid-American cities is undervalued. Maybe this is an experience unique to me, and I’m just biased. But it seems true. I’ve visited New York and San Francisco and DC many times, and I admit they are superior cities. But dollar for dollar, I think they are VASTLY over-rated. The quality of night-life, local community, schools, housing, transit, parks, ecology, etc. etc. in other cities I’ve visited and lived in are perhaps 70-80% as good, while costing 50% or less, and avoiding huge logistical hassles. I live in New Orleans, where I can own a three-bedroom house with a separate rented unit that keeps my total housing costs below $1000/month, in a very safe neighborhood near one of the best public schools, while still visiting world-class cultural activities (well, pre-COVID). The ceiling is much lower than New York, no doubt, but how often is the average New Yorker attending the Metropolitan Opera or Broadway shows? I can still visit New York if I want to have apex cultural experiences. And I can afford to do so.
If you’re from a small town that is literally a cultural backwater with nothing to recommend it, consider the nearest college town or midsized city. I lived in Lexington, Kentucky for several years and loved it.
I suspect that low preference for having kids may be, in some community members, an EFFECT of living in expensive, ultra-competitive, or difficult city, and not a cause. In other words, I wonder if people who say “I don’t mind having to commute by train from my 500 sq ft efficiency to my urban-center job while not being able to accrue any housing equity, because I don’t really want to start a family anyway,” are actually downplaying any urge for family planning because it’s logistically impractical. I’m not a die-hard having-kids advocate, but personally I underestimated the positive valence of having a child, so I think it’s something to consider.
The previous comments all basically assume the reader is American—I’m sorry that I’m only able to write from my experience as a native born US citizen, and I realize that there could be much more substantial costs associated with trying to “go home” to a foreign country, including loss of resident status, political oppression, etc. I still think immigrants should consider mid-America cities as an improved value proposition, but I don’t know if it would offer opportunities to increase your effectiveness (especially if it opened you up to bigotry or discrimination), and it’s possible the special benefits of having a local expatriate community from your own country would make large coastal hubs irreplaceable. Fair.
Thanks for the chance to offer my opinion.
Currently both the Amish and the Mormons are more effective at increasing their believer counts then the catholics.
In both cases there’s a strong focus on a certain demographic region.
If you see the project of rationality as mainly about spreading what we already have, then being distributed would make sense. If you see it more as being about going from 0 to 1 and evolving new rationalist techniques and models, it’s more useful to be concentrated.
Evolving rational thought is about sitting down together and doing hard work. Being in the same location helps with doing hard work together. It also makes it easier to pass knowledge about experiments, both successful and failed along.
An incremental process may still benefit from coordination. If once in a while somebody decides to move to “a place with many rationalists that is not Bay Area”, it may help if it is common knowledge that X is the place. So instead of three people moving to Boston, three people moving to Toronto, and three people moving to New Hampshire, we might get nine people moving to e.g. Boston.
But also, if each Catholic lived in a different town, Catholicism would disappear in one generation.
I wonder how much “spreading rationality” actually happens offline. At least I think I haven’t converted a single person, regardless of how many local meetups I organized. The local rationalists I know are those who came to the first meetups already being rationalists. It is great to meet each other sometimes, but it is unrelated to spreading rational thought.
Seems to me that as long as the internet debates remain, the recruitment channels will remain untouched, even if we all moved to the same place (which is unlikely to happen). Unless we all lived so close to each other that we would no longer feel a need to go debate online. But I assume there will always be more than one hub; and then there will at least be an online communication between them.
Given our numbers, our situation is more similar to Libertarians than to Democrats, which kinda makes this an argument in favor of New Hampshire. :)
This assumes that people listen to the lonely rational person.
But my actual objection is more like “put your oxygen mask on first”. If rationalists are rare, it is important to protect them against burning out, which can be achieved by a supporting environment. And if a rationalist wants to address a local problem, it seems useful to have other rationalists familiar with the same problem, so they can share knowledge, discuss strategies, cooperate. (Which approach is better, probably depends on the specific problem.)
I think here we agree a lot. You don’t have to put a sign saying “if you are not a young technologist, you are not welcome among us” in front of your door—moving to a place where hardly anyone else can afford the rent achieves exactly the same outcome. Which is why I am in favor of coordinating on another, less insane place.
This said, it seems to me that the Bay-centrism is gradually getting weaker than it used to be. (Not sure why; I suspect the influence of people who moved to Bay Area after participating in a local rationalist community elsewhere.) A few years ago, having a serious debate about moving away from Bay Area would be unthinkable.
Yep. I guess for some it is a genuine preference; for some it is rationalization of not being able to afford it; and for some it is a peer pressure from the previous two groups. (And a few can afford it, and go ahead.) I predict that if the main cultural hub moves to a cheaper and family-friendlier place, we will see a “rationalist baby boom” within five years.
You probably just won the prize for the highest upvoted first comment. Congratulations!
To say the obvious, don’t let my disagreement discourage you. (Also, we probably agree more than disagree, because I was more likely to react to those points where I had an opposite opinion.)